PVL3701
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, Law of Property
Question 1
Mr Mboweni’s Evergreen Printing Company would be able to vindicate the printing
machine and compressor from Mr Viljoen’s garage by using the rei vindicatio. This is
the real remedy available to an owner to reclaim their property from someone who is
unlawfully possessing it (Scott, Property Law Study Guide, 12).
To succeed with the rei vindicatio, Evergreen Printing must prove:
1. Ownership of the printing machine and compressor.
2. That Mr Viljoen is in possession of these items.
3. That possession is unlawful, as the lease expired and no legal right to keep the
items exists (Scott, Property Law Study Guide, 13).
In USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd (2023), the court confirmed
that an owner may reclaim movable property attached to another’s land if ownership is
proven and the current possessor has no legal right to keep it. Therefore, Evergreen
Printing can vindicate the items if it proves these three elements.
Question 2
The most likely legal route Mr Viljoen may rely on is the doctrine of accession,
specifically the principle that movables can become immovables when they are
permanently attached to land (Scott, Property Law Study Guide, 35).
Under accession, if a movable thing (like a machine) is permanently attached to
immovable property, it may become a fixture, and ownership could pass to the owner
of the immovable property. Mr Viljoen might claim that the printing machine and
compressor acceded to his garage when they were bolted to the floor and walls.
ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2025
UNIQUE NO.
DUE DATE: AUGUST 2025
, Law of Property
Question 1
Mr Mboweni’s Evergreen Printing Company would be able to vindicate the printing
machine and compressor from Mr Viljoen’s garage by using the rei vindicatio. This is
the real remedy available to an owner to reclaim their property from someone who is
unlawfully possessing it (Scott, Property Law Study Guide, 12).
To succeed with the rei vindicatio, Evergreen Printing must prove:
1. Ownership of the printing machine and compressor.
2. That Mr Viljoen is in possession of these items.
3. That possession is unlawful, as the lease expired and no legal right to keep the
items exists (Scott, Property Law Study Guide, 13).
In USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd (2023), the court confirmed
that an owner may reclaim movable property attached to another’s land if ownership is
proven and the current possessor has no legal right to keep it. Therefore, Evergreen
Printing can vindicate the items if it proves these three elements.
Question 2
The most likely legal route Mr Viljoen may rely on is the doctrine of accession,
specifically the principle that movables can become immovables when they are
permanently attached to land (Scott, Property Law Study Guide, 35).
Under accession, if a movable thing (like a machine) is permanently attached to
immovable property, it may become a fixture, and ownership could pass to the owner
of the immovable property. Mr Viljoen might claim that the printing machine and
compressor acceded to his garage when they were bolted to the floor and walls.
