Literally, Land is defined to include the surface of the earth and its components.
Section 1 of the Registration of Titles Act Cap 230, provides that land includes messuages, tenements and hereditaments (corporeal or
incorporeal), easements and appurtenances appertaining to the land described
therein or reputed to be part of that land or appurtenant to it.
The meaning
of land can be inferred from the Latin Maxim, of Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelom et ad inferos which translates that whoever owns the
land owns it all the way above to the heavens and all the way down to hell.
A Landowner has rights above the surface of the land.
This was
illustrated in the case of Kelsen V Imperial Tobacco Co [1975] 2 QB 334 in
which a party that erected a sign which protruded into another’s airspace was
held to be liable for trespassing onto the other owner’s land.
The land owner also has rights down below to the centre of the earth.
In Grigsby V Melville [1931] 1WLR 80, The entrance of a cellar was on the defendant’s part of the land and the other part lay on the claimant’s side. The claimant sought an injunction to stop the defendant from using it. Court held that the cellar on the plaintiff’s side belonged to him and he had the right to prohibit the claimant from using his part of the land.
This means
that land owner owns components beneath their land such as minerals subject to
the applicable laws. For example, In Uganda, some minerals like Gold, Diamond,
etc. found below land belong to the government.
Quic Quid Plantatur Solo Solo Cedit
This is a Latin maxim used in property law connoting that whatever is affixed to the soil becomes part of the soil. In the modern
context, whatever is fixed to land becomes part of the land. This can include
buildings, houses, and dwellings.
Suppose Y rents X land. Where X builds a house on Y’s land, the house is deemed to become
part of Y’s land. Y has no obligation of compensating X.
This
principle was applied and illustrated in the case of Holland V Hodgson (1872) LR 7CP 328. One party mortgaged land and later failed to fulfil the payment. The mortgagor (borrower) tried to recover the machines that were affixed to the
land by bolts claiming that they were just attached to the land slightly and he
was entitled to remove them. It was held
that even though the machines were slightly attached to the land in a way that
their removal could cause less damage to the land, they had become part of the land
and hence were the mortgagee’s fixtures.
This
principle was further applied in the case of Francis V Ibitoye where A
built a house on B’s land before the
completion of the sale of land agreement. The parties did not complete the
agreement and A demanded compensation for the building he had
erected on B’s land.
Though A managed to be compensated since the
sale was never completed. Court held that the
house had become part of B’s land
and A was under no obligation to compensate B.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FIXTURES
AND CHATTELS
Objects
attached to land can be categorized into two;
Fixtures
These are physical
objects that are substantially affixed to the land (ground), such that they form part of
the land itself.
Chattels
These are
physical moveable objects attached to land for a temporal purpose and are not
meant to form part of the land.
In
determining whether an object is a fixture or a chattel, two classical tests
are employed.
DETERMINATION
OF WHETHER AN OBJECT IS A FIXTURE OR CHATTEL
To determine
whether an object is a fixture or chattel, two classical synonymous tests are
applied by the court. First, the court will determine the degree of annexation and
secondly, the purpose of annexation.
Degree of Annexation
This refers
to the extent (depth) to which an object is fixed to land.
Objects that
are substantially fixed or deeply fixed to the land are prima facie considered to
be fixtures while objects that are not substantially affixed to the land are considered to be chattels.
Objects that
rest on land by their own weight are also considered to be chattels since
they are not substantially attached or deeply fixed into the ground.
However, for
this test to stand, it is supplemented with another test which is the purpose
of annexation.
Purpose of Annexation
This refers
to the object/purpose of fixing the object onto the property or land.
Objects
attached to land for the purpose of Improvement, permanent development or
utilization of land are considered to be fixtures.
Objects that
are attached to the land for the purpose of the improvement/support of the
chattels themselves are considered to be chattels.
This was
illustrated in the case of ATC Uganda Ltd
V Kampala Capital City Authority [2019] UGHCCD 190 in which the argument
was whether network masts were fixtures or chattels and to determine whether
they were eligible immovable property to be levied a tax upon as per the Local Government (Ratings) Act 2005.
In
considering the tests, the court made findings that although network masts were
substantially affixed to the land, they could easily be dismantled without
substantial damage to the land and moved elsewhere.
Considering the purpose of their annexation, they were meant to improve the utility of the masts themselves as chattels (i.e. finding proper signals) and not for the improvement of the land.
The court found
that network masts were moveable properties in the interpretation of the Local Government Act (Ratings) and the
plaintiff was not liable to pay the rates levied therein.
Types of Fixtures
Fixtures are
categorized into;
· Landlord Fixtures
· Tenant Fixtures
Landlord Fixtures
This refers
to fixtures that are attached to the land by the tenant and prima facie become the property of the landlord. This is because once they are attached to the land,
they become part of the land, which land belongs to the landlord. They then
become landlord fixtures.
The general
rule is that where a tenant fixes a chattel onto the landlord’s land becoming a
fixture it automatically becomes property of the landlord.
At the
expiry of the tenancy or lease, fixtures attached to the land by the tenant
become passed to the landlord. i.e. they become part of the land which is the
Landlord’s property.
The right to
remove fixtures from land by the tenant is restricted to; during the term of
tenancy or time specified in the lease and not when the tenancy has come to an end
except in a few circumstances (forfeiture or surrender).
Although the
general rule is that whatever the tenant attaches to the land becomes the landlord’s property, there are exceptions to this rule under tenant’s fixtures
which the tenant has the right to remove some of these fixtures.
However, unless
the tenant exercises their right to
remove or sever fixtures (Tenant fixtures) such fixtures still belong to
the Landlord.
Tenant Fixtures
These are
chattels attached/affixed to the land by the tenant not intended to permanently
form part of the land and can be removed without causing material damage to the
land.
Although the
general rule is that fixtures are considered to form part of the land due to
the nature and purpose of their affixation, the rule comes with exceptions in
that Tenant fixtures can be removed from the land. They are not considered
to form part of the land despite how deep or how they are substantially affixed to the
land.
Tenant
fixtures include; Trade or business
fixtures, domestic or ornamental and agricultural fixtures.
Trade Fixtures
These are
fixtures put in place by the tenant to ensure the proper running of their business.
In Young V Dalgety [1987] EGLR a tenant and a landlord entered into a covenant in
which the tenant agreed to install chattels such as light bulbs to the
ceiling, and carpets fastened to the floor by screws. During a rent review, the
landlord argued that the property had become fixtures and hence belonged to the
landlord.
The court held
that the property installed by the tenant fell in the category of tenant
fixtures since they were used to facilitate the tenant’s trade.
Ornamental Fixtures
These are
fixtures that are attached to the land to improve the appearance or beautify
the premises.
These
include paintings, curtains, light bulbs, and window blinds among others.
In Spyers V Phillipson [1931] executors of a tenant
who had installed panelling, chimney pieces and fireplaces were entitled to
remove them since they were ornamental fixtures and their removal caused no
material damage to the landlord’s land.
Agricultural Fixtures
Agricultural
Fixtures are fixtures attached to the land for the purposes of farming or
rearing animals.
Section 37(1) b of the Land Act provides that a tenant by occupancy (lawful or bona fide)
may remove any structures, buildings and other things placed by him or her on
the land but not dams or trees.
This means
that a tenant can remove any property except dams or trees.
In Bain V Brand, the court recognized fixtures
that could be removed by the tenant to include; those attached for the purpose
of trade and agriculture.
This gives
the power to a tenant to sever agricultural fixtures such as crops, farm
machinery, and other farming tools.
Under the arrangement of Tenants for life and remainder man, in the event of the death of the tenant for life, the remainder man is entitled to the removal of tenants’
fixtures such as trade, agricultural and ornamental fixtures and the rest are
presumed to be landlord fixtures.
Other distinguishing features between
Landlord and tenant fixtures
·
Tenant
fixtures can be removed from the land without substantial damage to the land
while landlord fixtures cannot be removed from the land without material damage
to the land while.
· Tenant Fixtures are meant for a temporary stay on the land i.e. they are annexed to the land for a specified period of time i.e. during the tenancy period while Landlord fixtures are meant to be left for an indefinite time.
Download the article as pdf below.
Conclusion
In a
nutshell, the principle of Quic quid
Plantatur solo solo cedit connotes the general rule that whatever is
attached to the land becomes part of the land.
However, this
rule is not absolute and it comes with exceptions i.e. In the event of Tenants Fixtures.
Such tenant
fixtures are annexed to the land but without intentions of permanently making
them part of the land and even their removal does not cause substantial damage to
the land. They can be trade, ornamental, or agricultural tenant fixtures which the tenant has the right to
remove before the expiry of the tenancy.
I hope you found this discourse on fixtures and chattels helpful. Join my telegram channel for FREE study guides and resources