Marx and Others v Gray and Others (3632/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 46 (5 March 2020)

Marx and Others v Gray and Others (3632/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 46 (5 March 2020)

The court found that the respondents were conducting a business from the premises, as evidenced by the employment of several workers and the advertising of swimming lessons. The applicants, as residents of the area, have locus standi to enforce zoning restrictions, regardless of their proximity to the property. The breach of zoning provisions constitutes sufficient injury, and no alternative remedy is reasonably available to the applicants. The respondents' arguments regarding alternative remedies and lack of standing were rejected. The application for a final interdict was justified and granted.

Citation
[2020] ZAFSHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Hendrika Marx; Applicant: Maryna Jacobs; Applicant: Gavin Glen Hartman; Respondent: Simon Francis Paul Gray; Respondent: Simon Gray Swim Academy; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2020
Case Number
3632/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application granted. Final interdict issued against first and second respondents.
Judges
Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Zoning Scheme Enforcement, Locus Standi, Final Interdict, Municipal Bylaws, Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act
Land and Property Administrative Law Zoning Scheme Enforcement Locus Standi Final Interdict Municipal Bylaws Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrika Marx

Applicant

Maryna Jacobs

Applicant

Gavin Glen Hartman

Applicant

Simon Francis Paul Gray

Respondent

Simon Gray Swim Academy

Respondent

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are conducting a business from the premises in contravention of zoning laws.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have no alternative remedy and meet the requirements for a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were conducting a business from the premises, as evidenced by the employment of several workers and the advertising of swimming lessons. The applicants, as residents of the area, have locus standi to enforce zoning restrictions, regardless of their proximity to the property. The breach of zoning provisions constitutes sufficient injury, and no alternative remedy is reasonably available to the applicants. The respondents' arguments regarding alternative remedies and lack of standing were rejected. The application for a final interdict was justified and granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Final interdict issued against first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are interdicted and restrained from conducting or allowing any other person to conduct a business from the premises situated at 100 Albrecht Street, Dan Pienaar, Bloemfontein described as Erf 6104, Dan Pienaar, Bloemfontein.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.