USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd and Others v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023)

Case Name: USS Graphics (Pty) Ltd and Others v Urban Print Factory (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023) 

Court: High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg Judge: Keightley J 

Case number: 30921/2019 

Date: 14 February 2023 

Facts of the Case 

USS Graphics and two other printing companies worked with Urban Print Factory and its  director, Mr Spykerman, in the printing business. 

The fight was about who owned certain printing equipment, especially a large Mitsubishi 5- colour printing machine, a compressor, a forklift, and an Iveco delivery van. 

USS said it bought the Mitsubishi machine in 2015 from Mr Spykerman’s company,  Spykerman Investment Holdings, for R4.8 million. 

The payment was done through Absa Bank, and the bank confirmed that USS had finished  paying for it. 

Later, the business relationship between Mr Burger (the owner of USS) and Mr Spykerman  broke down. Mr Spykerman continued using the machine at his company, Urban Print  Factory, and refused to give it back. 

USS then went to court asking for the return of the machine and other equipment through a  rei vindicatio, which is a legal action where the true owner asks the court to order someone to  return their property. 

Issues Before the Court 

1. Was USS the true owner of the Mitsubishi printing machine? 
2. Did the machine become part of the building (through a process called accession) and  therefore belong to Spykerman Investment Holdings? 

Arguments by the Parties

USS Graphics (Applicants) 

• USS said it bought the Mitsubishi lawfully and paid for it in full. • The machine could be taken apart and moved, even though it was big and heavy. 
• They offered to repair any damage caused when removing the machine from the  building. 

Urban Print Factory and Others (Respondents  

They said the Mitsubishi had become part of the building because it was fixed into the floor They also said USS had not proved that it really owned the machine. They relied on a lease  clause that said all improvements to the property belonged to the landlord. 

Judgment 

The court ruled in favour of USS Graphics. 

It found that: 

∙ USS was the owner of the Mitsubishi printing machine. 

∙ The machine had not become part of the building. 

∙ The respondents must give back the Mitsubishi, compressor, forklift, and Iveco to  USS. 

∙ USS must be allowed to remove the machine from the premises. 

∙ The respondents must pay all legal costs. 

Court’s Legal Reasoning 

Ownership 

The court said USS had proved ownership. 

Absa Bank’s letter showed that USS had paid for the machine in full and was the rightful  owner. 

The respondents’ denial was weak and did not create a real dispute of fact, as explained in 

Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1and Wightman t/a JW  Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd2. 

Accession (Becoming part of the building) 

The court looked at three things to decide if the machine had become part of the building: 1. The nature of the thing – the Mitsubishi was large and heavy (about 98 tons). 2. The way it was attached – it was not bolted down permanently and could be removed. 

The intention of the owner – it was never meant to stay in the building forever3. 

Experts from both sides agreed that the machine could be dismantled and moved with heavy  equipment. 

One expert said the machine was “part of the business, not part of the building,” meaning the  building could still function without it. 

The judge said that if Mr Spykerman really meant for the machine to be a permanent fixture,  he could not have later sold it to USS4. 

The sale showed it was meant to stay movable. 

The lease clause the respondents relied on did not help them, because it only applied to  improvements made by the tenant, not by the land 

Lord. 

Conclusion 

The court concluded that: 

• USS Graphics was the rightful owner of the Mitsubishi printing machine. • The machine had not acceded to the property. 
• The respondents had to return all the equipment and allow USS to remove the  Mitsubishi. 
• The respondents had to pay for the costs of the case. 

Reference(S):

1Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A). 

2Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another 2008 (3) SA 371 (SCA).

3 Badenhorst et al Silberberg and Schoeman’s The Law of Property 4ed (2002) 140–141.

4 McDonald Ltd v Radin NO and the Potchefstroom Dairies and Industries Co Ltd 1915 AD 454. Judge Keightley added that such disputes should be decided with common sense, fairness,  and practicality, referring to Opperman v Stanley and Another5.  

5 Opperman v Stanley and Another (North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Case No. 19539/2008, unreported, 9  December 2010, Makgoba J)