UGANDA PENTECOSTAL UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF LAW

NAME : TWINAMATSIKO ROBERT

REG NO. : U/2024/LLB/0360/E

UNIT : LAND LAW

LECTURER: CSL MUHWEZI ANTHONY

 Introduction

The principle "quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit" is a common law doctrine stating that
anything attached to the land becomes part of the land this was seen in the case of
Saleh vs Abdarrham Bin Hassan1meaning ownership of a fixture or improvement
automatically passes with the ownership of the land itself. This legal maxim helps
determine ownership of fixtures, which are permanent additions to property that lose
their separate identity. While a general rule, its application is often nuanced by the
degree and purpose of annexation, the item's specific nature, and potential exceptions
in customary law or equity.

Definition of Land according to Land Act Section 2 – "land" includes the surface of the
earth and
the earth below the surface and all substances other than minerals or petroleum forming
part of or
below the surface, things naturally growing on the land, buildings and other structures
permanently
affixed to or under land and land covered by water;
According to legal Latin Maxim which states that Quicquid plantatur solo, solo cedit
(Latin,
"whatever is affixed or attached to the soil belongs to the soil") is a Legal Latin principle
related to
fixtures. The legal principle means that something that is or becomes affixed to the land
becomes
part of the land; therefore, title to the fixture is a part of and passes with title to the land
and
consequently whoever owns that piece of land will also own the things attached.
That maxim is different from the Zanzibar Land tenure Act 1992 Section 2- “land”
includes
land covered by water, all things growing on land, and buildings and other things
permanently
affixed to land, except trees when specifically classified and owned separately.
Differences between chattels and Fixtures
‘Fixtures’ are those material things which are physically attached to land so that they
become part
of the reality and the property of the landowner. An object which becomes a fixture
merges, so to
speak, with the land and accordingly passes automatically with all subsequent
conveyances of the
land unless lawfully severed from it. A fixture will always belong to land owner a
chattel may
belong to another.
A chattel on the other hand is a physical object which never becomes attached to the
land even

1
3 (1990) 24 KLR
 though placed in some close relation with it and so does not pass with conveyances of
the land.
Factors for determination of whether the item attached form a part of land depend on
two
factors;-
1- Degree of annexation(attachment)
According to the degree of annexation test, an article is a fixture if it is attached to land
or a
building in a substantial manner, such as by nails or screws. The more firmly or
irreversibly the
object is affixed to the earth or a building, the more likely it is to be classified as a
fixture. There
must be a physical connection with the land or with something that is part of the land
and object.
2- The purpose of annexation
The determination of the status of an item is not conclusively determined
by the degree of
annexation. If the circumstances show that the object was intended to form part of the
landscaping
or architectural design of the premises and is resting by their own weight, then they can
be regarded
as fixtures. Items attached to the land for the purpose of enjoyment are regarded as
chattels
Definition of Land according to Osborn’s Concise law Dictionary 2– "land" includes the
surface of the earth and the earth below the surface and all substances other than
minerals or petroleum forming part of or below the surface, things naturally growing on
the land, buildings and other structures permanently affixed to or under land and land
covered by water.

Land is an immovable and indestructible three-dimensional area consisting of a portion

of the earth’s surface, the space above and below the surface, and everything growing
on or permanently affixed3..In Saleh V Abdurrahman Bin Hassan4 the issue was whether
a house can be said to be land. It was held that a house without land is not land, the
beginning point is land and it must go with the land on which it was built. The court
further went on to an old Latin maxim of “quid quid plantator Solo solo credit” meaning
whatever has been erected on the land becomes part of it.

The general law relating to fixtures is summed up in the Latin phrase: “quic quid
plantatur solo, solo cedit” Meaning: Whatever is attached to the land as a permanent
fixture becomes part of the land and the property of the owner of the land

2
12th edition by Sweet and Maxwell
3
Black’s law Dictionary page 881
4
Supra 1
The common law definition of land includes everything that attaches to it, this
proposition is summed up in yet another Latin maxim quic quid plantatur solo cedit
literally translated it means that which attaches to the land goes with it. The maxim is
primarily used to determine the rights of a landowner over things attached to or
embedded in the land. The classical rule is that where a person fixes a thing (or chattel)
on another land or building on the land in such a way that in law it is a fixture it becomes
the property of the landowner as was determined in Francis v ibitoye The land owner
has no legal obligation to compensate the person who attached the thing to the land as
per lomolo v kilembe mines ltd.

The rule is illustrated by a Nigerian case of Francis v ibitoye5 in the that case the plaintiff
was negotiating with the defendant to purchase the latter’s land. Before the negotiations
were concluded the plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the defendant
proceeded to construct a house on the land. Unfortunately the negotiations for the sale
of the land fell through, the plaintiff sued the defendant for compensation for the building
he had erected on the land. It was held that the defendant was not under any obligation
to compensate him. The judge said; I know of no authority for such a claim … it is trite
law that a building erected in such circumstances …becomes the property of the
landowner without any obligation to recompensate the builder 6 .

However in equity the court may intervene in case where the landowner’s assertion of
his or her strict legal rights is unconscionable, equity’s intervention is based on the
principle variously known as the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or estoppel by
acquiescence. Lord Cranworth in the famous case of Ramsden v dyson7 espoused the
circumstance which would give rise to equitable jurisdiction to intervene. His lordship
said that

If a stranger begins to build on my land supposing it to be his own and I perceiving

his mistake abstain from setting him right and leave him to persevere in his error a
court of equity will not allow me afterwards to assert my tittle to the land on which he
had expended money on the supposition that the land is his own. It considers that
when I saw the mistake …it was my duty to be active to state my adverse title and it
would be dishonest in me…. Afterwards to profit by the mistake which I might have
prevented.

5
(1936) NLR 1
6
IBID 12
7
(1866) LR 1 HL 129;140-41
This principle in Ramsden v dyson was as well help in the Ugandan case of Babiruga v
karegyesa8 and others and in the case of musoke Bafirawala v Jogga8

A fixture is a thing attached to the land in such a way that in law it becomes part of the
land. generally, two broad tests are employed to determine whether an item has lost its
character as a chattel and become a fixture. They are the degree of annexation and the
object of annexation.

The degree of annexation is determined by the means by which the things is attached to
the land for example by nails bolts mortar or its own weight. As general proposition an
item that is attached to the Land by any means other than by its own weight prima facie
is deemed to be a fixture as was determined in the case of Holland v Hodgson9 for
example a building, a notice board screwed onto the wall ,electricity cables , a rainwater
tank standing on a plinth held by mortar or cement are all prima facie fixtures. The
slightest fixing to the land is sufficient to raise the presumption that an item is a fixture 10.
Where this is the case the person who asserts that it is not a fixture has the onus of
proving it. Conversely if a thing is resting on the ground by its own weigh prima facie it is
not a fixture and onus of proof is on the person who says that it is a fixture as was held
in Holland v hogson (supra). Examples of such items include chairs in a building without
any attachment, a carpet and a pile of bricks lying on the ground without any mortar.

The burden of proof is discharged by employing the second test; the object of
annexation. The object of annexation refers to the intention of the person who affixed
the thing to the land. if his or her intention was to make a permanent and substantial
improvement to the land or building then the item is part of the land. If on the other hand
his or her objective was for a temporary purpose for more complete enjoyment of the
thing as a chattel then it remains a chattel as was held in the case of Shah v Shah
vershi devshi & co11

The classical illustration of the two tests is the case of Holland and hodgson. In that
case the owner of a mill purchased some looms for use in his mill. They were attached
to the stone floor by nails driven into wooden beams. They could quite easily be
removed. The owner then mortgaged the mill and failed to keep up the payments and

8
CA No MAK 13 OF 1993 (unreported) see also Runda coffee Estate Ltd v JagerSingh (1966) EA 564. 8
CS No 33 of 1973: (1976) HCB 26 (unreported)
9
(1872) LR 7 CP 328
10
Ibid
11
17 KLR 20.
the mill was repossessed. The question for the court was whether the looms were
fixtures forming part of the land or whether they remained chattels. It was held, the
looms had become fixtures and thus formed part of the land mortgaged. Blackburn J
introduced the degree and object of annexation test: “ an article which is affixed to the
land even slightly is to be considered as part of the land, unless the circumstances are
such as to shew that it was intended to all along continue a chattel, the onus lying on
those who contend that it is a chattel.” Under this test, the question to be asked is
whether the chattel was attached to the land to enable the object to be better enjoyed as
a chattel, or for the more convenient use of the land. Blackburn J on the object of
annexation: "Thus blocks of stone placed one on the top of another without any mortar
or cement for the purpose of forming a dry stone wall would become part of the land,
though the same stones, if deposited in a builder's yard and for convenience sake
stacked on the top of each other in the form of a wall, would remain chattels."

Due to the difficult task to determine the intention of the person who fixed the thing. The
courts have laid down certain guidelines for determining the intention of the parties that
is; where a thing is firmly held and its removal would entail destruction or serious
damage to the thing itself or to the building most likely it was intended to be a fixture. If it
could easily be removed then it is unlikely to be a fixture as held in Berkley v poulett12 .
the purpose for which the subject matter is used in relation to the main use of the Land
is another important guideline. Where there is a strong linkage then it is more likely to
be held to be fixture as in Holland v Hodson (supra). It was held in Reynolds v Ashby &
sons that the capacity in which the fixer attached the thing could also provide a
guideline as to the intention of the person. If the person was the landowner at the time
most likely he or she intended the thing to be permanently on the land. The converse is
likely to be the case if the person who attached the thing to the land was a tenant
especially on a short-term lease.

It should be stressed however that none of these guidelines is conclusive. All facts and
circumstances of the case have to be taken into account and each case depends on its
own facts.

Megarry and wade noted that in certain circumstances the person who attached a
fixture is entitled to remove it. The fixer may of course remove his or her fixtures where
both parties expressly agree. Secondly even in the absence of an agreement at

12
(1976) 241 EG 911.
 common law it is implied that certain fixtures installed by a tenant belong to the tenant
who attached them and that he or she has a right to remove them from the land.

Trade fixtures are fixtures attached to the land by a tenant for purposes of trade or in
connection with the business he or she conducts on the land. for example machines,
petrol pumps, shelves in a shop and shop counters. Ornamentals fixtures are those
which a tenant attaches to the land for decoration like tapestries, statues and pictures.
Fixtures used for domestic purposes include cookers, water pumps curtains and blinds.
It is important to note that doors and windows installed by a tenant are not tenants’
fixtures hence in the absence of express agreement the tenant who attached them
cannot remove them when the lease expires as was determined in New Zealand
government property crop case (supra). Also fixtures attached by the tenant for use in
connection with agriculture are not treated as trade fixtures therefore a tenant who
attached such fixtures is not entitled to remove them 13. Such as fence or shed erected
by a farmer to enclose animals.

As a general rule unless otherwise agreed a tenant must remove the fixtures from the
land before the lease expires and whilst he or she is in possession. Fixtures that are not
removed in time by the tenants are deemed forfeited to the landlord and become his or
her property absolutely as was held in poole’s case 14. As a condition for the removal of
tenant’s fixtures, the person who removes the fixtures must make good any damage
caused in the course of removal15

In conclusion, the maxim quic quid plantatur solo, solo cedit can be seen through a
Marxist lens as a legal instrument for upholding capitalist property relations and
entrenching class power. In the Ugandan context, its application is fundamentally
challenged by the country's pluralistic land tenure system. While the maxim exists in the
statutory framework, it clashes with the principles of Mailo and customary land tenure,
which often prioritize the rights of the laborer and occupant over the absolute rights of
the title holder. This conflict highlights the ongoing struggle over land ownership and

13
Elwes v maw (1802) 3 East 38 102 ER510.
14
(1703) 1 stalk 368; 91 ER 320
15
Mancetter developments ltd v garmanson [1986] QB 1212

Powered by TCPDF ([Link])

labor value in post-colonial Uganda, reflecting broader global tensions between
capitalist and indigenous property systems