EThekwini Municipality v Bhardwaj (3135/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 80 (11 September 2015)

EThekwini Municipality v Bhardwaj (3135/2015) [2015] ZAKZDHC 80 (11 September 2015)

The respondent was subject to a court order restraining any building construction on his property except as foreshadowed by the approved plan. Photographic and documentary evidence established that, after the order was granted, the respondent undertook substantial construction in the prohibited area, including a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 80
Parties
Applicant: EThekwini Municipality; Respondent: Deepak Bhardwaj
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 September 2015
Case Number
3135/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt of Court Application Following Interim Interdict Order
Outcome
The respondent is found in contempt of the court order dated 26 February 2015. He is committed to prison for 30 days, suspended for two years on condition of compliance and demolition of unlawful construction within 30 days. Costs are awarded against the respondent on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
L TOPPING
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Building Regulations, Interdict, Town Planning Scheme, Approved Building Plan, Demolition Order
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Building Regulations Interdict Town Planning Scheme Approved Building Plan +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EThekwini Municipality

Applicant

Deepak Bhardwaj

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt of Court Application Following Interim Interdict Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order granted on 26 February 2015.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent undertook building construction work contrary to the approved plan after the order was granted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's non-compliance was wilful and mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was subject to a court order restraining any building construction on his property except as foreshadowed by the approved plan. Photographic and documentary evidence established that, after the order was granted, the respondent undertook substantial construction in the prohibited area, including a roof and concrete floor, which did not conform to the approved plan. The respondent admitted awareness of the order and receipt of multiple notices warning him of the illegality. His explanation that he misunderstood the order and believed he could proceed pending special consent is rejected as unworthy of credence, given his legal representation and explicit warnings. The...

Court Disposition

The respondent is found in contempt of the court order dated 26 February 2015. He is committed to prison for 30 days, suspended for two years on condition of compliance and demolition of unlawful construction within 30 days. Costs are awarded against the respondent on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is found in contempt of the order granted by this court on 26 February 2015.
  • The respondent is committed to prison for a period of thirty (30) days.