Kleyn and Another v Boikanyo and Another (014507/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 187 (29 February 2024)

Kleyn and Another v Boikanyo and Another (014507/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 187 (29 February 2024)

The applicants, as owners of the adjacent property, demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the respondent's building activities, which continued unlawfully despite municipal notices and requests to cease. The court found the matter urgent due to ongoing construction and unresolved security concerns affecting the applicants' elderly mother. The applicants satisfied the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right, reasonable apprehension of harm, and absence of a satisfactory alternative remedy. Relief under Section 14(1) of the Building Standards Act was denied as it applies only to buildings erected with municipal approval, which was not the case here. The court also...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 187
Parties
Applicant: Rudigor Rosseau Kleyn N.O.; Applicant: Lorinda Roux N.O.; Respondent: Maria Plantina Tjetje Boikanyo; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Case Number
014507/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Interdict granted against the first respondent; costs awarded to the applicants; relief under Section 14(1) and against the municipality refused.
Judges
Kooverjie
Legal Topics
Building Plan Approval, Interdict, National Building Regulations, Locus Standi, Municipal Enforcement
Land and Property Administrative Law Building Plan Approval Interdict National Building Regulations Locus Standi Municipal Enforcement

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudigor Rosseau Kleyn N.O.

Applicant

Lorinda Roux N.O.

Applicant

Maria Plantina Tjetje Boikanyo

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek an interdict against the first respondent's building activities.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is urgent and warrants immediate relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining building activities pending municipal approval.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, as owners of the adjacent property, demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the respondent's building activities, which continued unlawfully despite municipal notices and requests to cease. The court found the matter urgent due to ongoing construction and unresolved security concerns affecting the applicants' elderly mother. The applicants satisfied the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right, reasonable apprehension of harm, and absence of a satisfactory alternative remedy. Relief under Section 14(1) of the Building Standards Act was denied as it applies only to buildings erected with municipal approval, which was not the case here. The court also...

Court Disposition

Interdict granted against the first respondent; costs awarded to the applicants; relief under Section 14(1) and against the municipality refused.

Orders

  • The matter is declared urgent.
  • The first respondent is interdicted from continuing with any building activities on Unit 2 in the Sectional Title Scheme of the M[…] L[…] Site, Scheme Number: […], ([…] C[…] Ave, W[…] H[…], Pretoria) until building plan approval is furnished by the second respondent in terms of Section 4(1) of the National Building...