BVHT Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a the Boat House v Ballito Ski Boat Club and Others (13120/2007) [2007] ZAKZHC 48 (14 December 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION

13120/2007

BVHT PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD T/A THE BOAT HOUSE APPLICANT

versus

BALLITO SKI BOAT CLUB FIRST RESPONDENT

KWADUKUZA MUNICIPALITY SECOND RESPONDENT

THE MEC OF AGRICULTURE AND

ENVIRONMENAL AFFAIRS

KWA-ZULU NATAL PROVINCIAL

GOVERNMENT THIRD RESPONDENT

THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

AFFAIRS AND TOURISM FOURTH RESPONDENT

THE LIQUOR BOARD KWA-ZULU NATAL FIFTH RESPONDENT

RESERVED JUDGMENT

Delivered on: 14 December 2007

NTSHANGASE, J

[1] In this matter the relief sought by the applicant is for an order:

That the application be heard as one of urgency in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules, and that non-compliance with the rules relating to the form and manner of service and time periods be condoned;

That the first respondent be ordered to forthwith and at its own cost remove the pre-fabricated structure erected on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 BALLITOVILLE KWAZULU NATAL;

Alternatively to paragraph (ii) above, that the second respondent be ordered to remove the pre-fabricated structure erected on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 BALLITOVILLE KWAZULU NATAL;

Further alternatively that the Sheriff of the Court be authorised to remove the structure and the first and second respondents to pay the costs thereof;

That the first and second respondents be prohibited from erecting a building as defined in Section 1 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, Act 103 of 1977 on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 BALLITOVILLE KWAZULU NATAL, until all the applicable provisions of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, Act 103 of 1977 and the regulations issued in terms of the said Act or the applicable regulations issued in terms of the said Act had been complied with, as well as all the applicable provisions of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998 and the applicable regulations issued in terms of Section 44 of the said Act;

That the first respondent be prohibited to erect a marquee tent or any similar structure on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 BALLITOVILLE KWAZULU NATAL;

That the first respondent and all its members be prohibited from:

consuming alcoholic beverages on the beachfront in front of the applicant’s property as described above;

allowing any of their guests to so consume alcoholic beverages in front of applicant’s property as described above;

urinating on the land and beachfront in front of applicant’s property and against applicant’s fence bordering the beachfront;

intimidating and verbally abusing applicant’s employees and guests;

playing loud music in front of applicant’s property.

That the second respondent be ordered to take the necessary steps against any persons including members of the first respondent who contravene the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, No. 103 of 1977 and the regulations thereto;

Alternatively to paragraph (ii) to (viii) above that the orders set out in paragraphs (ii) to (viii) above be issued pendente lite pending finalisation of an action to be instituted by the applicant within 30 days from date hereof against respondents for the relief set forth in paragraphs (ii) to (viii) above, or similar or ancillary relief;

That the first respondent through its members, a list of which the second respondent is ordered to furnish forthwith, jointly and severally with second respondent be ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and own client scale, jointly and severally with any of the other party to the proceedings opposing the relief sought.

No orders are sought against the third, fourth and fifth respondents cited insofar as they have an interest in the activities on the beachfront concerned, except in the event of opposition.

[2] Prayer (v) was later amended to delete reference to second respondent; prayer (vi) was also later amended to read:

“That the first respondent be prohibited to erect a marquee tent or any similar structure without permission of the second respondent in front of Erf 1639 Ballitoville KwaZulu Natal; while 8 was abandoned.

Prayer (viii) was abandoned.

[3] The two grounds which found the applicant’s claim for relief are the pre-fabricated structure erected on the seaside boundary of its property and the nuisance associated with the operation and management of the launch site.

[4] The application is opposed by first and second respondents both as to urgency and on the merits. I found in favour of the applicant on the issue of urgency after hearing argument and furnished brief reasons for that decision. Indeed, as will become apparent later, the second respondent itself regarded and treated the matter as one of urgency insofar as it itself required an immediate removal of the pre-fabricated structure by the first respondent. The other items of relief, being ancillary to the issue of the pre-fabricated structure, also warranted urgent consideration.

[5] The application on the merits is opposed on the basis that no case has been made out for a final nor an interim interdict.

[6] The applicant is the registered owner of the property described as Erf 1639, Ballitoville, Kwazulu Natal on which is situated the business of a boutique hotel of four star rating, restaurant and conference venue called the Boat House. It is also licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. Viewed from Annexures “E” and “F” it is a picturesque edifice whose undisputed value has been given as fifty million rand (R50 000 000). It has a beachfront view. I shall refer to it as applicant’s property.

[7] Adjacent to applicant’s property is a boat-launching site for the operation whereof the KwaDukuza Municipality, the second respondent, is the licensed operator in terms of Regulation 7(4)(e) of the Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”). It is operated by the Ballito Ski-Boat Club, the first respondent, as the second respondent’s agent for the time being.

[8] On 3 November 2007, as averred by the applicant, the first respondent erected a pre-fabricated structure measuring approximately forty square metres with the back thereof approximately two metres from the seaside boundary of the applicant’s property. Save that the first respondent contends that it was deposited and not erected within the meaning of that word in Section 1 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, Act No. 103 of 1977 [“the NBRBS Act”], there is no other dispute over this. The structure is depicted in various Annexures including “I”, “J”, “K’ and “L” to applicant’s founding affidavit. It is to serve as a club-house in replacement of the previous one which was washed away in a storm, in March 2007. It is depicted as a brown structure with first respondent’s name and “AIDA” in Annexure “F” to applicant’s founding affidavit located on the side of applicant’s property. There is some controversy about its area which is given as twelve square metres by applicant and the second respondent contending, without providing detail of its size but suggesting it to have been “far larger than claimed by the applicant.”

[9] The applicant complains about the positioning of the structure which obscures the front seaside view of its property and contends, as does the second respondent that the presence of the pre-fabricated structure on the site is illegal as it was not preceded by steps and approvals prescribed by the NBRBS Act and regulations issued in terms of such Act. This appears to refer to Section 4(1) of the NBRBS Act which prohibits erection of a building in respect of which plans and specifications are to be drawn and submitted in terms of that Act, without the prior approval in writing of the local authority, in this case the second respondent. It is an approval given after the interests of neighbouring properties have been taken into account.

[10] Mr Goddard for first respondent argued with reference to the definition of “erection” in Section 1 of the NBRBS Act that the structure was not “erected” within the meaning of that word in Section 1 of the Act as the structure “was built in accordance with a South African Bureau of Standards certification elsewhere and merely brought to and placed on the site,” and that it was but a temporary structure.

[11] I am of the view that the Bureau of Standard’s certification is irrelevant insofar as the Bureau’s requirements for certification may not necessarily meet those of the local authority whose prior approval is given upon it being satisfied that the application for approval complies with the requirements of the NBRBS Act and any other applicable law. Section 4(1) of the NBRBS prohibits erection of any building in respect of which plans and specifications are to be drawn and submitted in terms of the NBRBS Act without prior approval in writing of a local authority. Subsection (2) prescribes the manner of application while subsection 3(a) prescribes what the application to be made must contain and subsection (3)(b) what should accompany such application.

[12] I do not agree that the pre-fabricated structure was not erected on the site. Section 1 of the NBRBS Act defines erection as follows:

“Erection, in relation to a building, includes the alteration, conversion, extension, rebuilding, re-erection, subdivision of or addition to, repair of any part of the structural system of, any building; and “erect” shall have a corresponding meaning.”

A building is defined to include a structure of temporary nature..

[13] Even if the first respondent were correct in stating that the pre-fabricated structure which had been assembled elsewhere was merely deposited on site, my view would be that such could properly be defined as an act of erection. To hold otherwise would, in my view, lead to an absurdity or to something which is repugnant to the intention of the legislature in enacting the provisions of Section 7 of the NBRBS Act whose purpose would be defeated. Section 7(1) provides:

“If a local authority, having considered a recommendation referred to in section 6(1)(a)

is satisfied that the application in question complies with the requirements of this Act and any other applicable law, it shall grant its approval in respect thereof

(i) is not so satisfied; or

(ii) is satisfied that the building to which the application in question relates –

is to be erected in such manner or will be of such nature or appearance that –

(aaa) the area in which it is to be erected will probably or in fact be disfigured thereby;

(bbb) it will probably or in fact be unsightly or objectionable;

(ccc) it will probably or in fact derogate from the value of adjoining or neighbouring properties;

(bb) will probably or in fact be dangerous to life or property such local authority shall refuse to grant its approval in respect thereof and give written reasons for such refusal:

… ”

The absurdity or the repugnance to the intention of the legislature lies in the result that any structure, if assembled elsewhere and deposited on site would pass muster as proper to erect when, if assembled on site that selfsame structure would attract disapproval if it does not meet the requirements stipulated in section 7 of the NBRBS Act.

In my view the word “erection” would need to be accorded its ordinary meaning which is an act of setting up1 a building which is not expressly excluded by what the word “erection” is denoted to include in relation to a building in the definition of that word in section 1 of the NBRBS Act.

It simply is an act of setting up a building as one would a tent2 which requires no process of assembling on site.

[14] Even if I am wrong in this, Annexure “U” to applicant’s founding affidavit does depict the process of assembling the structure on site as does Annexure “AC” to applicant’s founding affidavit which shows plumbing in progress. Accordingly the contention advanced on behalf of the first respondent that as the first respondent did not erect the pre-fabricated structure it was not legally obliged to take steps and make application for approval in terms of the NBRBS Act, and that it is therefore not in breach of such Act, must fail.

[15] In regard to the challenge to the applicant’s locus standi in approaching the court on an issue of breach of the NBRBS Act, Mr Chadwick advanced an argument with reference to bases upon which the applicant would be entitled to do so as enunciated in various authorities he cited and submitted that the applicant does not fall within a specific class of persons which the NBRBS Act was designed to protect nor does the applicant fall within any specific class of persons which the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 or its regulations was designed to protect, and that such legislation was enacted for the general public interest. I do not agree. Clearly “(e)veryone has the right … to protect himself by appeal to a court of law against loss caused to him by the doing of an act by another, which is expressly prohibited by law.”3 In my view the applicant makes no proposition which purports to contend that he seeks to derive the relief he seeks from the protection as one of the class of such persons as contemplated in such laws. I understand his reference to such legislation as intended to point to the fact that but for the breach of these laws his rights would not have been infringed, and that had the first respondent complied with the provisions of the NBRBS Act a process would have been set in motion to attract the approval of the local authority upon being satisfied that the building was to be erected in such manner or would be of such a nature or appearance that it would not probably or in fact be unsightly or objectionable nor probably or in fact derogate from the value of adjoining or neighbouring properties.4 The applicant therefore does not, in my view, make reference to breaches of the provisions of the Act as would an unaffected bystander who arrogates unto himself a duty of policing over violations thereof.

[16] The first respondent perceives no infringement of the applicant’s rights and refers to its presence on the site as pre-dating the commencement of applicant’s business on its property. It is also argued that the first respondent has, in fact, done no more than to replace the old existing club-house. Now, whereas in the past the first respondent was served by a club-house structure of approximately twelve square metres with a minimal obstruction to the view from applicant’s property, it has now replaced it with a grotesque forty square metre structure erected two metres from the seaside boundary of applicant’s property, a fact not disputed in first respondent’s answering affidavit by Dudley Boswell. The unreasonable positioning of the pre-fabricated structure appears to be a deliberate obstruction which unreasonably obstructs the view from the applicant’s property’s gazebo as depicted in Annexure “J”. I consider it to be beyond reasonable contention that its placement where it is, as well as the act of planting unsightly and objectionable poles depicted in Annexure “O and P” to applicant’s founding affidavit, not only unreasonably deprives the property of applicant of the amenity of the view, it also detracts from the aesthetic profile of the applicant’s property, and also does derogate from the value of its property.

[17] It does violence to the profile of the applicant’s property whose force of attraction of patrons lies largely in its capacity to provide a serene and tranquil destination with pleasant aesthetic surroundings to holiday-makers. The structure unreasonably interferes with the view enjoyed from applicant’s property before its erection. Before the demolition of the previous structure, despite its existence, a largely uninterrupted view was enjoyed from applicant’s property as Annexure “M” to applicant’s founding affidavit shows. The loss thereof by reason of first respondent’s illegally erected structure diminishes the property’s force of attraction to present and potential patrons on each day that the obtrusive structure remains positioned where it is. It is beyond reasonable contention that it has negative financial implications for the property’s earning capacity as a highly rated beachfront hotel from where it now lies hidden behind the obtrusive structure.

[18] The pre-fabricated structure’s two metre proximity to the seaside boundary of applicant’s property poses a potential danger to persons on applicant’s property as its safety has not been established. Second respondent itself in Annexure “AF” to applicant’s founding affidavit addressed to first respondent stated:

“Therefore the safety, stability and appropriateness of the structure as erected have not been established …”

The structure is also placed too close to applicant’s property to avoid harm to applicant’s property from debris in the event of flooding similar to one which washed away the previous structure. Mr Goddard’s argument that such flooding incidents are rare provides cold comfort because of the unpredictability of the occurrence of flooding.

[19] The second ground upon which the applicant seeks relief relates to what, according to the applicant, constitutes a nuisance which unreasonably interferes with his rights and impacts negatively on its business. That includes the erection of a marquee on the beachfront in front of applicant’s property, from which alcoholic beverages are sold and consumed, urinating on the land and beachfront in front of applicant’s property, intimidating and verbally abusing applicant’s employees and guests and playing loud music in front of applicant’s property by users of the launch site. The first respondent claims entitlement to some of these activities in which they have engaged on site while denying responsibility for others which the applicant identifies. Both the first and second respondents argue that the applicant is not entitled to the relief sought as its claim relies on events which occurred in December 2006.

[20] In regard to the erection of a marquee which I shall deal with first, the first respondent’s affidavit by Dudley Boswell [Boswell] conveys that it will not erect a marquee during the 2007/2008 period and that there is therefore no need for the relief sought by the applicant in paragraph (vi) of its prayer. This would provide cold comfort to the applicant when a letter from Attorneys De Wet Schulz Incorporated on behalf of the first respondent would not give an undertaking not to erect the marquee when the applicant sought such an undertaking. Indeed the first respondent appears to regard the erection of the marquee and the activities within it to be a lawful annual event. In that regard the first respondent’s affidavit by Boswell reads:

“The first respondent obtained permission from the second respondent to have a New Year’s Eve party at the end of 2006. Because the 31st of December 2006 fell on a Sunday, it was necessary to erect the marquee to be used for the party in advance. Alcoholic beverages were in accordance with an events licence held by the supplier of the beverages. The event was, to the best of my knowledge conducted in an entirely lawful and proper manner, bearing in mind that it was a New Year’s party.”

I fail to understand how permission could have been granted by second respondent for that event in the light of the regulatory Clause 3.5.1 of the “Environmental Management Plan [EMP] for the management and operation of the Salmon Bay Launch site Ballito, Kwa Dukuza” which reads:

“The launch site and the areas adjacent to it shall not be regarded as a Recreational Use Area, or used as such unless specifically designated at a future date.”

There is no evidence in these proceedings that such designation has occurred. Therefore the erection of the marquee and the activities within and around it were a clear transgression of EMP5 which is an integral part of the Record of Decision [ROD] in terms of regulation 13(1) of Government Notice No. 1399 of 21 December 2001 and the provisions of section 44 of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 with regard to the boat launch site. It is therefore reasonable for the applicant to apprehend that the illegal erection of the marquee and related activities will again take place in the present and other festive seasons.

[21] Associated with the illegal activities related to the marquee are the activities which occur in the club house in regard to which the first respondent in the affidavit of Boswell states:

“Clearly a club house is meant as a meeting place and there will always be a social aspect attached to a voluntary (and sporting) association such as the first respondent. This is not only natural and desirable as a means of social intercourse, but is necessary in order to generate sufficient funds to fulfil the objects of the first respondent, and to allow the launch site to operate safely and efficiently.”

This clearly misconceives the purpose for which the club house is to be used, in the light of Clause 3.5.1 of EMP, although Boswell elsewhere in the affidavit correctly states:

“… it is essential that the first respondent have a clearly established club house which can operate as a command post, house personnel, store equipment and ensure that the facility for the operation of a safe launch site is in place.”

[22] Another misconception in regard to permissible activities on the launch site is evident from what follows in the affidavit by Boswell:

“Associated with the foregoing, and I concede an aspect of healthy existence of the club, is a social aspect, and one aspect of this is that when conditions allow, members will congregate, braai freshly caught fish and have a few drinks.”

This again occurs in violation of Clause 3.5.1 of EMP. In terms of the provisions of Clause 3.5.1 social functions may be conducted anywhere but on the launch site and the areas adjacent to it.

[23] The provisions of EMP define a strict and orderly code of conduct to be observed on the launch site. To maintain the tranquil nature of the area, clearly in deference to the rights of adjoining property users, Clause 5.4.1 provides:

“Noise on the site must be kept to a minimum”

It is therefore not clear how the noise associated with a New Year’s Eve Party could be permitted on the launch site.

Defining again the activities to be conducted on the launch site Clause 2.1.2 of EMP provides:

“The launch site and slipway at Salmon Bay shall be utilised for the sole purpose of launching motorised watercraft into the sea for purposes of leisure and also in the pursuance of emergency activities”

All users of the launch site are obliged to abide by the regulatory conditions for the use of the launch site:

Clause 2.2.1 of EMP provides:

“Users of the launch site, whether members of the club, family members, friends, visitors or other legally permitted users are required to abide by the conditions as laid down in this EMP”

[24] All these conditions for use of the launch site serve the purpose of measuring the activities to alleviate interference with rights of others in the neighbourhood. Heralding the resumption of operations by erection of the illegal structure on 3 November 2007 to replace one washed away in March 2007 provided reasonable cause for the applicant to apprehend it as ushering a resumption of the hive of activity like the New Year’s Eve party which endures through the night on the launch site and other unauthorised activities referred to earlier which previously, in utter disregard of rights of neighbours, and which attracted complaints not only from the applicant but also from applicant’s hotel guests, one of whom, according to Annexure “R7” to applicant’s replying affidavit, remarked:

“3. Members of the Ballito Ski Club were holding

continuous parties, having braai's, a large number of men were drinking beer and playing loud music

4. It was so unbearable that I could not open the windows to my room because of the noise emanating from the parties held.”

Another guest complained:

“I was a guest at the Boathouse from Wednesday 17th to Saturday 20th October. We left early as we could not deal with the racket being made by the “fishing or canoeing club” outside the guest house.”

The negative financial implications to the business enterprise of the applicant is evident from this. There was also evidence of physical abuse of applicant’s Manager Childsmith all flowing from the abusive conduct on the launch site and the undisciplined use and management thereof.

[25] The second respondent’s answering affidavit by Deran Janse van Rensburg [Janse van Rensburg] takes issue with what he refers to as the applicant’s failure for eleven months to approach the court for relief. This seems to overlook that after the clubhouse had been washed away in March 2007, a curtailment of activity on site gave little cause for complaint. It was when the first respondent, on 3 November 2007 illegally resumed operations by the illegal erection of the pre-fabricated structure that cause for complaint again arose to result in the present proceedings.

[26] It appears from Janse van Rensburg’s answering affidavit that the second respondent itself granted permission for the New Year’s Eve party to take place, illegally in the light of Clause 3.5.1 of EMP. This, despite the following provisions of Clause 4.1.1 of EMP.

“The operator, KwaDukuza Municipality and its service provider, namely the Ballito Ski-Boat Club, [BSC], licensed in terms of Regulation 7(4)(e) of the Regulations in terms of the National Environmental Management Act No. 107 of 1998 (NEMA) – control of vehicle in the coastal zone, is responsible for compliance with this EMP.” (my emphasis)

[27] It appears from Janse van Rensburg’s affidavit that the management of second respondent does not exercise an intimate supervision of the launch site to inform itself of causes for complaints related to the use of the launch site. It appears from his answering affidavit that apart from the illegal erection of the pre-fabricated structure and the unsightly poles the second respondent regards all else to be well on the launch site. Second respondent states it has received no complaints according to its files about any of the improper behavioural activities of the nature complained of by the applicant and the guests of its establishment whose complaints were quoted earlier as examples. It appears from this that the second respondent has divested itself of intimate supervision and management responsibility of the site and that it depends on complaints to be made to it to be informed about conditions on site instead of itself engaging in intimate management of the launch site to inform itself about activities thereon to ensure for proper conduct by all persons on site as is provided for in Clause 9.3.1.9 of the “Record of Decision” that the Municipality as the licensed operator “maintains the current good practices for the management of multiple user groups.”

[28] The second respondent contends that there is, for the applicant, an adequate alternative remedy in the form of criminal complaints with the South African Police services or second respondent’s Protection Services. This suggests that each time and day that members of first respondent or their guests in their large numbers commit a nuisance the applicant shall forever be burdened with the despatch of reports to the police or Protection Services of the second respondent to abate such nuisance which the second respondent, in terms of the conditions of license, and in particular Clause 4.1.5 of EMP, should take responsibility to prevent from occurring by intimate management of all people and activities on the launch site. It is as extremely unrealistic to expect this of the applicant as it is for him to assume as a legitimate burden, to virtually manage and police the launch site on behalf of the second respondent. It is also not clear what assistance the Police Services would provide to him where, as happens, the members of first respondent and their guests, in violation of the provisions of EMP hold parties, “braai’ fish and consume alcohol and when they fail to keep the noise to a minimum all of which second respondent ought to eradicate by proper management measures.

[29] In my view there exists for applicant no other reasonable alternative remedy. The failed consultations in which applicant’s management attempted to engage with management of the second respondent clearly show that he exhausted every other remedy which was reasonably open to him to protect his rights against the illegal acts of the second respondent’s agent, the first respondent. It must be clear to the second respondent even from first respondent’s defiance of the instruction of second respondent, its principal, to remove the illegal pre-fabricated structure, that no amount of effort from applicant would prevail upon the first respondent to resolve with him the issues on which applicant has had to approach the court.

[30] By reason of the foregoing the application must succeed and I accordingly make the following order:

1. That the first respondent forthwith and at its own cost remove the pre-fabricated structure erected on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 Ballitoville KwaZulu Natal;

2. Alternatively that the Sheriff be and is hereby authorised to remove the structure and the first respondent to pay the costs thereof;

3. That the first respondent be prohibited from erecting a building as defined in Section 1 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, Act 103 of 1977 on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 BALLITOVILLE KWAZULU NATAL, until all the applicable provisions of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, Act 103 of 1977 and the regulations issued in terms of the said Act or the applicable regulations issued in terms of the said Act had been complied with, as well as all the applicable provisions of the National Environmental Management Act, Act No. 107 of 1998 and the applicable regulations issued in terms of Section 44 of the said Act;

4. That the first respondent be prohibited to erect a marquee tent or any similar structure without permission of the second respondent on the beachfront directly in front of Erf 1639 BALLITOVILLE KWAZULU NATAL;

5. That the first respondent and all its members be prohibited from:

urinating on the land and beachfront in front of applicant’s property and against applicant’s fence bordering the beachfront;

intimidating and verbally abusing applicant’s employees and guests;

playing loud music in front of applicant’s property.

The first and second respondents to pay the costs of this application.

Date of Hearing: 30 November 2007

Date of Judgment: 14 December 2007

Counsel for the applicant: Adv P Nel

Instructed by: Mark Efstratiou Incorporated

c/o Cox Yeats Attorneys

Counsel for the first respondent: Adv G Goddard

Instructed by: De Wet Schulz Incorporated

c/o Goodrickes Attorneys

Counsel for the second respondent: Mr AIJ Chadwick

Instructed by: Shepstone and Wylie Attorneys

1 The shorter Oxford Dictionary, Third Edition Vol. I, A Markworthy at 677

2 See Markworthy op.cit.P.1954: “set-up” as defined under “J” is “to erect and make ready for use; to pitch (a tent); to erect (a building)

3 Patz v Greene & Co 1907 TS 427 at 433

4 s. 7 (b) (bbb) and (ccc) of the NBRBS Act.

5 Annexure “AE” to applicant’s founding affidavit

23