Goordayal and Another v Body Corporate of Riverside Mews and Others (10576/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 87 (6 November 2015)

Goordayal and Another v Body Corporate of Riverside Mews and Others (10576/2014) [2015] ZAKZDHC 87 (6 November 2015)

The court found that the disputes of fact between the parties were irresoluble on the papers and too wide-ranging for referral to oral evidence without proper definition of issues. The matter was referred to trial, with the applicants' founding affidavit to stand as a simple summons and the respondents' answering affidavit as a notice of intention to defend. Pending trial, the applicants were interdicted from carrying out further building alterations without approved plans and necessary Body Corporate consent. All questions of costs were reserved for the trial court.

Citation
[2015] ZAKZDHC 87
Parties
Applicant: Balraj Goordayal; Applicant: Shomina Goordayal; Respondent: The Body Corporate of Riverside Mews; Respondent: Sanjay Singh; Respondent: EThekwini Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2015
Case Number
10576/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral to Trial After Opposed Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Application referred to trial; interim interdict granted against applicants pending trial; costs reserved.
Judges
Lopes
Legal Topics
Sectional Title Disputes, Building Plan Approval, Interdict, Counter Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Sectional Title Disputes Building Plan Approval Interdict Counter Application

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balraj Goordayal

Applicant

Shomina Goordayal

Applicant

The Body Corporate of Riverside Mews

Respondent

Sanjay Singh

Respondent

EThekwini Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral to Trial After Opposed Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the members of the Body Corporate were misled by Mr Goordayal regarding the nature and extent of the intended alterations to Unit 5.
  2. 2 Whether the Body Corporate was authorised to oppose the application and seek relief in the counter-application.
  3. 3 Whether the building work already undertaken by the applicants was lawfully carried out and whether it must be demolished.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disputes of fact between the parties were irresoluble on the papers and too wide-ranging for referral to oral evidence without proper definition of issues. The matter was referred to trial, with the applicants' founding affidavit to stand as a simple summons and the respondents' answering affidavit as a notice of intention to defend. Pending trial, the applicants were interdicted from carrying out further building alterations without approved plans and necessary Body Corporate consent. All questions of costs were reserved for the trial court.

Court Disposition

Application referred to trial; interim interdict granted against applicants pending trial; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is referred to trial.
  • The first applicant’s founding affidavit shall stand as a simple summons, and the second respondent’s answering affidavit shall stand as a notice of intention to defend.