Hibiscus Coast Municipality v Steyn and Others (9827/2010) [2014] ZAKZDHC 45 (29 October 2014)

Hibiscus Coast Municipality v Steyn and Others (9827/2010) [2014] ZAKZDHC 45 (29 October 2014)

The court found that the central issue is the determination of the true boundary of the Government Reserve, which is disputed on the papers and cannot be resolved without oral evidence. The methodologies used by the respective surveyors differ, and the Surveyor General's report has not been fully ventilated by the parties. The court held that it is not in the interests of justice to decide the application until the boundary is clarified, as this affects whether the respondents' structures fall within the reserve and the applicant's entitlement to relief. The court also noted that environmental authorisation may be required for demolition, further complicating the matter. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2014] ZAKZDHC 45
Parties
Applicant: Hibiscus Coast Municipality; Respondent: Nicholas Johannes Steyn; Respondent: Gerrit Grobler; Respondent: Clinton Cockrell; Respondent: Deborah Cockrell; Respondent: Craig Robertson; Respondent: Garth Hill; Respondent: Kenneth Kearns; Respondent: Byron Kearns; Respondent: Michael Barnes; Respondent: Susan Barnes; Respondent: Robert Heard; Respondent: Carol Heard; Respondent: Loather Frey; Respondent: Diane Frey; Respondent: Michael Swanson; Respondent: Linda Swanson; Respondent: Lionel Gilbert; Respondent: Shelley Gilbert; Respondent: Hylton Reid; Respondent: Sandy Clark; Respondent: Dael Clark; Respondent: Alfred Ford; Respondent: Kelwyn Edwards; Respondent: Kathy Edwards; Respondent: Robert Nethercott; Respondent: Patricia Nethercott; Respondent: Derek Groger; Respondent: The State President of the Republic of South Africa
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2014
Case Number
9827/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Application referred to oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
Koen
Legal Topics
Boundary Dispute, Admiralty Reserve, Demolition Order, National Building Regulations, Sea Shore Act, Environmental Authorisation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Environmental Law Boundary Dispute Admiralty Reserve Demolition Order National Building Regulations Sea Shore Act +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hibiscus Coast Municipality

Applicant

Nicholas Johannes Steyn

Respondent

Gerrit Grobler

Respondent

Clinton Cockrell

Respondent

Deborah Cockrell

Respondent

Craig Robertson

Respondent

Garth Hill

Respondent

Kenneth Kearns

Respondent

Byron Kearns

Respondent

Michael Barnes

Respondent

Susan Barnes

Respondent

Robert Heard

Respondent

Carol Heard

Respondent

Loather Frey

Respondent

Diane Frey

Respondent

Michael Swanson

Respondent

Linda Swanson

Respondent

Lionel Gilbert

Respondent

Shelley Gilbert

Respondent

Hylton Reid

Respondent

Sandy Clark

Respondent

Dael Clark

Respondent

Alfred Ford

Respondent

Kelwyn Edwards

Respondent

Kathy Edwards

Respondent

Robert Nethercott

Respondent

Patricia Nethercott

Respondent

Derek Groger

Respondent

The State President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Referral to Oral Evidence After Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the true boundary of the Government Reserve relevant to the structures in dispute.
  2. 2 Do the respondents' structures fall within the Government Reserve or the sea shore as defined by statute.
  3. 3 Is the applicant entitled to an order for demolition and removal of the structures under lease rights, the Sea Shore Act, or the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the central issue is the determination of the true boundary of the Government Reserve, which is disputed on the papers and cannot be resolved without oral evidence. The methodologies used by the respective surveyors differ, and the Surveyor General's report has not been fully ventilated by the parties. The court held that it is not in the interests of justice to decide the application until the boundary is clarified, as this affects whether the respondents' structures fall within the reserve and the applicant's entitlement to relief. The court also noted that environmental authorisation may be required for demolition, further complicating the matter. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application referred to oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is referred for the hearing of oral evidence on specified boundary and statutory issues.
  • Witnesses who have deposed to affidavits and any further witnesses may be called, subject to procedural requirements for statements of evidence.