Daarus Saada Prperties v Violet and Another (2022/014415) [2025] ZAGPJHC 393 (14 April 2025)

Daarus Saada Prperties v Violet and Another (2022/014415) [2025] ZAGPJHC 393 (14 April 2025)

The court found that the relief sought in the amended Notice of Motion is now academic, as the structures in question have been brought into compliance with the approved building plans following inspection and remedial action. The Applicant failed to address further alleged illegal structures in the founding affidavit, and the scope of the application does not extend to these issues. The request for postponement sine die was denied, as the Applicant had ample opportunity to supplement its case but elected not to do so. The court held that the Applicant must be bound by the case as pleaded and that any new issues must be addressed in a separate application. Costs were awarded against the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 393
Parties
Applicant: Daarus Sa’ada Prperties CC; Respondent: Umar Matselane Violet; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2025
Case Number
2022/014415
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Interlocutory Postponement and Inspection in Loco
Outcome
Application for postponement denied. No order on demolition as relief is academic. Costs awarded against First Respondent.
Judges
Engelbrecht
Legal Topics
Building Regulations, Demolition Orders, Approved Building Plans, Costs Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Building Regulations Demolition Orders Approved Building Plans Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daarus Sa’ada Prperties CC

Applicant

Umar Matselane Violet

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Interlocutory Postponement and Inspection in Loco

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the structures erected by the First Respondent on the property comply with approved building plans.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought in the amended Notice of Motion remains live or has become academic.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to a postponement sine die to address further alleged illegal structures.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relief sought in the amended Notice of Motion is now academic, as the structures in question have been brought into compliance with the approved building plans following inspection and remedial action. The Applicant failed to address further alleged illegal structures in the founding affidavit, and the scope of the application does not extend to these issues. The request for postponement sine die was denied, as the Applicant had ample opportunity to supplement its case but elected not to do so. The court held that the Applicant must be bound by the case as pleaded and that any new issues must be addressed in a separate application. Costs were awarded against the...

Court Disposition

Application for postponement denied. No order on demolition as relief is academic. Costs awarded against First Respondent.

Orders

  • Application for postponement sine die is denied.
  • No order is made regarding demolition of structures as the relief is academic.