Americo v Thwala N.O and Another (2780 of 7) [2007] SZHC 94 (2 August 2007)

_{IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND}

whic h h e expect s th e owne r thereo f t o compensat e him . H e therefore claim s h e ha s a lie n ove r the property . Th e Firs t Responden t ha s however , no t addresse d this issu e t o the satisfactio n o f the applicant . Th e Applican t ha s communicate d t o th e Firs t Responden t his willingnes s o r desir e t o purchas e th e propert y bu t the indication s ar e that th e Firs t Responden t intend s sellin g the propert y t o someon e else . I t i s thi s state o f affairs o r impass e tha t ha s drive n th e applican t t o launc h this e x part e applicatio n seekin g inter alia for an orde r :

"2 . Tha t th e applicant' s improvemen t lie n i n the su m o f

El96,000.0 0 b e an d i s hereb y confirmed .

3 . Tha t a Rul e Nis i b e an d i s hereb y issue d confirmin g th e applicant' s improvemen t lien i n th e su m o f E 196,000.0 0 (On e Hundre d an d ninet y six thousan d Emalangeni ) ove r immovabl e propert y Lo t No . 260 , Essele n Street , Manzin i hel d unde r Dee d o f Transfe r No . 2 3 o f 1957 .

4 . Tha t a Rul e Nis i b e an d i s hereb y issue d interdictin g an d restrainin g th e Secon d Responden t fro m effecting transfer o f Lo t

^{260 , Essele n Street , Manzin i hel d unde r Dee d o f Transfer No. 23 o f}

195 7 pendin g paymen t o f applicant' s clai m o f E196,000.00. " ' ' ' ^r

[3] Thi s applicatio n exhibit s a fundamenta l misunderstandin g o f th e ius retentionis o r detentionis o n the par t o f th e applicant . Thi s right, a s its nam e o r rea l appellatio n indicates , i s a righ t o f retentio n o r detention . I t i s a righ t o f th e lie n holde r t o retai n o r detai n th e propert y o f anothe r o n whic h he , th e lien-holde r ha s expende d mone y o r money' s wort h for

whic h h e ha s no t bee n compensated . I t i s a rea l righ t an d operate s agains t th e whol e world . I t i s a righ t tha t attache s t o an d goe s wit h the propert y irrespectiv e o f whethe r o r no t ownershi p thereo f ha s change d hands . I f for example , th e propert y i s transferre d t o anothe r person , th e ne w owne r take s ove r th e property , subjec t t o o r a s burdene d b y the lien.

2

[4] I n th e cas e o f UNITE D BUILDIN G SOCIET Y v SMOOKLER' S TRUSTEE S AN D GOLOMBICK' S TRUSTEE , 190 6 T S 62 3 a t 63 0 th e cour t state d the rul e a s follows :

"The rule the n seem s t o b e tha t salvag e an d improvemen t liens prevai l agains t all th e world , but, o n the othe r hand , ar e limite d t o expense s whic h hav e maintaine d o r advance d th e marke t price ; whil e debto r an d credito r lien s (so far, a t all events , a s the y includ e expense s no t limite d b y consideration s o f marke t price) ar e restricte d withi n th e limit s o f contractua l privity . ...No w a ius retentionis for necessariae or utiles impensae ma y wel l be , an d we thin k is , a rea l right . N o doub t i t i s no t possessionin g i n th e lega l sense , bu t i t i s a righ t t o exclud e everyon e els e fro m possessio n durin g th e continuanc e o f a certai n state o f things . I t i s therefore a righ t t o exclud e th e whol e worl d from th e enjoymen t o f on e o f th e mos t importan t privilege s whic h accompan y dominium "

[5] Agai n i n COHE N AN D COMPAN Y v LAWTO N AN D FRANKENBERG ,

192 1 SW A 4 3 a t 44 , GUTSCH E J state d thatj _ "Th e iu s retentioni s o r lien whic h the la w confer s o n a n artificer wh o ha s bestowe d labou r o r expens e o n a n articl e delivere d t o hi m for repai r o r improvemen t come s int o effect ips o jur e an d entitles th e artificer t o retai n th e article unti l hi s jus t charg e i s paid .

T o obtai n thi s righ t n o specific ac t o f th e workma n - apart from possession ; no t th e possessi o civilis , i.e. possessi o anim o domini , bu t possessi o naturalis , i.e. possessi o anim o sib i habend i sed absqu e opinion e domini . ..Tha t is , ther e mus t b e physica l contro l o r detenti o couple d wit h the animu s sibi habend i o r animu s possidendi. "

[6] Th e IU S retentionis i s no t a righ t tha t ma y b e use d t o foun d a basi s for interdictin g o r restrainin g the owne r o f propert y t o whic h a lien obtain s o r relates , fro m sellin g o r alienatin g suc h property . I t i s a right o r defenc e agains t eviction ; a weapo n o f defenc e rathe r tha n offence . O n its ow n an d e o nomine i t i s no t a caus e o f action ; bu t unjus t enrichmen t ma y b e use d t o foun d a n actio n for compensatio n i n suc h circumstances .

[7] I n REE D BRO S v FORD , 192 3 TP D 150 - WESSEL S J P referring t o

Voe t an d othe r author s state d that;

"Al l tha t thes e authoritie s sa y i s tha t i f I hav e buil t upo n you r lan d an d i n fact improve d i t i n valu e yo u ca n no t clai m the lan d from m e withou t payin g m e compensatio n for the improvements , an d i f yo u tak e th e lan d I ca n su e yo u for the valu e o f th e improvement s o r els e I ca n withhol d th e propert y from yo u unti l yo u pa y me .

...Nowher e d o th e Roma n Dutc h Authoritie s sa y tha t th e Roma n La w i n regar d t o iu s retentioni s ha s bee n s o completel y change d tha t wherea s i n th e late r syste m the righ t wa s onl y a weapo n o f defenc e i t becam e i n th e forme r a weapo n o f offence . ...Retentio n differs fundamentall y fro m th e acti o pignoratiti a i n s o far tha t i t onl y afford s a groun d for defenc e t o a n actio n t o recove r the propert y retaine d an d tha t doe s no t a s a genera l rul e giv e a caus e o f action. "

[8] I als o pointe d ou t t o counse l tha t apar t fro m th e fact tha t ther e wa s nothin g o n th e paper s t o justif y no t givin g notic e o f th e applicatio n t o the respondents , confirmin g th e applicant' s lien for El96,000-0 0 woul d b e tantamoun t t o enterin g judgemen t i n favou r o f the applican t agains t the first responden t i n tha t sai d amount , throug h the backdoo r an d this cour t coul d no t d o that .

[9 ] For the above reasons, I ruled that the application was hopelessly misconceived and had to be dismissed.