Property law

Tutorial 1 exercise
Legal issue
Whether Ms Fatina has ownership right over the built-up golf.
Legal principle
The Khan case.
The Aldine Timber Judgement.
Section 25 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Application
The constitution of the Republic of South Africa gives everyone the right to ownership.1
A principal thing is that one that gives the ultimate thing its character, form and function.
In this case the engine gave the car its character, form and function. Without the engine the car
wouldn’t be an actual car. So, in this case the engine is the principal thing. The engine that Mr
Eksteen connected to the car has more value than the car body.
In the Khan case2, authorities shows that the decision is an application of common sense. And
just like in our case, Mr Eksteen added a component of which is the engine to the body and the
engine costs more than the body and it is a principal thing in this case. So having to decide this
Mr Eksteen invested in the car.
The engine gives the car its character, which is that of being a car and without the engine the car
wouldn’t be a real car. Mr Eksteen’s engine also gave the car its function because a car wouldn’t
function without an engine.
The Aldine Timber Judgement looks into the thing that has value over the other to determine
ownership of a thing.3 So, in the case of Mr Eksteen and Ms Fatima, the engine has more
economic value compared to the body of the car.
Conclusion
Based on the facts above, I would say that Mr Eksteen has Ownership rights over the golf car
based on the fact that he owns the principal thing and considering the value he added on the car.
Mr Eksteen has more chances of succeeding in this case based on the facts mentioned above.

1
The constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
2
khan v minister of law and order 1991 (3) sa 439.
3
Aldine Timber Co v Hlatswayo 1932 TPD 337 at 341.