per se restricted in any way. There was merely an obligation to pay over to a third party a share of the proceeds of such grant, sale or expropriation The court rejected the registrar's objection to registration It seems as if two considerations played a role in the courts decision. First, the fact that there was authority for the registration of cond itions which entailed an obligation to pay an amount of money to somebody else. 41 Secondly, and more importantly, the conclusion that the cond ition in question passed the "subtraction from the dominium'test the court motivated this conclusion as follows: 42 In my view one of the rights of ownership is the jus disponendi or right of alienation and if this right is limited in the sense that the owner is precluded from obtaining the full fruits of the disposition it can be said that one of his rights of ownership is restricted Registration of the cond ition was accord ingly allowed It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this decision with that in the Lorentz case. In both allowed and in the other not. One of these decisions must therefore be wrong. Mosx was 0 cases the condition in question entailed payment by a land owner, to a third, of the proceeds received upon disposal of the land(or rights therein). In the one instance, registration commentators agree, 43 albeit for different reasons, that it is Pearly Beach. Criticism against the case includes the views that the subtraction from the dominium' test was not correctly formulated and applied in the case, 4 that a different test should have been employed 45 and that the court did not put sufficient emphasis on the reasoning in the lorent case. 46 Ultimately however, the Pearly Beach case is seen by all these commentators as another demonstration of the fact that the subtraction from the dominium'test does not provide a clear-cut answer to the question whether or not a new type of right in land is capable of registration. 47 3.4 Denel(Pty ) Ltd V Cape Explosive Works Ltd and Another48 In this regard, the court referred to a num ber of decisions, including those discussed and distinguished in the Lorentz case. see n. 34 above 42At617 43For a different view, see AJ. van der Walt 'Personal Rights and Lim ited Real Rights: An Historical Overview and Analysis of Contemporary Problems Related to the Registra bility of Rights'1992 Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg 170 at 203 44PJ. Badenhorst and P P J. Coetser"The Subtraction from the Dominium Test Revisited 1991 De Jure 375 45J.C. SonnekusSaaklike Regte of Vorderingsregte?-Tradisionele Toetse en'n Petitio Principii'1991 Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 173 46C. G. van der Merwe " Law of Property'1990 Annual Survey of South African Law 192 at 206 47See furthersect. 4 beloy 481999(2)SA419(Tper se restricted in any way. There was merely an obligation to pay over to a third party a share of the proceeds of such grant, sale or expropriation. The court rejected the Registrar’s objection to registration. It seems as if two considerations played a role in the court’s decision. First, the fact that there was authority for the registration of conditions which entailed an obligation to pay an amount of money to somebody else.41 Secondly, and more importantly, the conclusion that the condition in question passed the ‘subtraction from the dominium’ test. The court motivated this conclusion as follows:42 In my view one of the rights of ownership is the jus disponendi or right of alienation and if this right is limited in the sense that the owner is precluded from obtaining the full fruits of the disposition it can be said that one of his rights of ownership is restricted. Registration of the condition was accordingly allowed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile this decision with that in the Lorentz case. In both cases the condition in question entailed payment by a land owner, to a third, of the proceeds received upon disposal of the land (or rights therein). In the one instance, registration was allowed and in the other not. One of these decisions must therefore be wrong. Most commentators agree,43 albeit for different reasons, that it is Pearly Beach. Criticism against the case includes the views that the ‘subtraction from the dominium’ test was not correctly formulated and applied in the case,44 that a different test should have been employed45 and that the court did not put sufficient emphasis on the reasoning in the Lorentz case.46 Ultimately, however, the Pearly Beach case is seen by all these commentators as another demonstration of the fact that the ‘subtraction from the dominium’ test does not provide a clear-cut answer to the question whether or not a new type of right in land is capable of registration.47 3.4 Denel (Pty.) Ltd. v Cape Explosive Works Ltd. and Another48 41In this regard, the court referred to a number of decisions, including those discussed and distinguished in the Lorentz case: see n. 34 above. 42At 617I. 43For a different view, see A.J. van der Walt ‘Personal Rights and Limited Real Rights: An Historical Overview and Analysis of Contemporary Problems Related to the Registrability of Rights’ 1992 Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg 170 at 203. 44P.J. Badenhorst and P.P.J. Coetser ‘The Subtraction from the Dominium Test Revisited’ 1991 De Jure 375. 45J.C. Sonnekus ‘Saaklike Regte of Vorderingsregte? - Tradisionele Toetse en ’n Petitio Principii’ 1991 Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg 173. 46C.G. van der Merwe ‘Law of Property’ 1990 Annual Survey of South African Law 192 at 206. 47See further sect. 4 below. 481999 (2) SA 419 (T)