Du Toit N.O. and Others v Coenoe 90 CC and Others (1584/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 126 (2 August 2017)

Du Toit N.O. and Others v Coenoe 90 CC and Others (1584/2017) [2017] ZAFSHC 126 (2 August 2017)

The court found that the operation of Pandora's Guesthouse on a property zoned for single residential use was unlawful, as no formal consent had been granted by the municipality and informal consent from officials did not suffice under the relevant ordinances. The applicants, as affected owners and residents, had locus standi to seek an interdict without needing to prove special damage. The court held that the requirements for a final interdict were met, as the applicants had a clear right to enforce compliance with the zoning scheme, the unlawful use was ongoing, and no adequate alternative remedy existed. The respondents' request for suspension of the interdict was rejected, as...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 126
Parties
Applicant: Hendrik Enslin Du Toit N.O.; Applicant: Martha Magdalena Visser N.O.; Applicant: Pieter Geneke Du Toit N.O.; Applicant: Agent Mngomezulu; Applicant: Jacobus Christoffel Du Plessis; Applicant: Daniel Johannes Bezuidenhout; Applicant: Jacobus Petrus Hendricus Marx; Applicant: Nancy Annie Harriet Bruitenbach; Respondent: Coenoe 90 CC; Respondent: Francois Retief Bester; Respondent: Silvia Elizabeth Bester h/a Pandora's Guesthouse; Respondent: Dihlabeng Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2017
Case Number
1584/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Before the High Court
Outcome
Application granted. Final interdict issued against first and second respondents, suspended until 15 September 2017. Costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
J.J.F. Hefer
Legal Topics
Town Planning Scheme, Illegal Land Use, Interdict Requirements, Locus Standi, Municipal Zoning, Special Consent Application
Land and Property Administrative Law Civil Procedure Town Planning Scheme Illegal Land Use Interdict Requirements Locus Standi Municipal Zoning +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Enslin Du Toit N.O.

Applicant

Martha Magdalena Visser N.O.

Applicant

Pieter Geneke Du Toit N.O.

Applicant

Agent Mngomezulu

Applicant

Jacobus Christoffel Du Plessis

Applicant

Daniel Johannes Bezuidenhout

Applicant

Jacobus Petrus Hendricus Marx

Applicant

Nancy Annie Harriet Bruitenbach

Applicant

Coenoe 90 CC

Respondent

Francois Retief Bester

Respondent

Silvia Elizabeth Bester h/a Pandora's Guesthouse

Respondent

Dihlabeng Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operation of Pandora's Guesthouse on a property zoned for single residential use is unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek an interdict against the respondents for contravention of zoning laws.
  3. 3 Whether informal or interim consent from municipal officials legalises the use of the property as a guesthouse.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the operation of Pandora's Guesthouse on a property zoned for single residential use was unlawful, as no formal consent had been granted by the municipality and informal consent from officials did not suffice under the relevant ordinances. The applicants, as affected owners and residents, had locus standi to seek an interdict without needing to prove special damage. The court held that the requirements for a final interdict were met, as the applicants had a clear right to enforce compliance with the zoning scheme, the unlawful use was ongoing, and no adequate alternative remedy existed. The respondents' request for suspension of the interdict was rejected, as...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Final interdict issued against first and second respondents, suspended until 15 September 2017. Costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents are interdicted from using Erf [...], Bethlehem (Extension 43), district Bethlehem, held in terms of Title Deed 24560/204, situated at [...] K. S., La Provance, Bethlehem, for any purpose other than dwelling house/unit and/or in conflict with the single residential zoning.
  • The First and Second Respondents are interdicted from conducting any business, office or accommodation facility other than dwelling house/unit from Erf [...], Bethlehem situated at [...] K. S., La Provance, Bethlehem whilst and until any application to amend the land use of Erf [...], Bethlehem has been approved by...