Paola v Jeeva NO and Others (475/2002) [2003] ZASCA 100; [2003] 4 All SA 433 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 396 (SCA) (26 September 2003)

Paola v Jeeva NO and Others (475/2002) [2003] ZASCA 100; [2003] 4 All SA 433 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 396 (SCA) (26 September 2003)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the third respondent's approval of the building plans was invalid because it failed to appoint a building control officer and did not consider a recommendation from such officer, as required by the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. These requirements are jurisdictional facts, and their absence renders the approval void. The court further found that the proposed development would derogate from the market value of the appellant's property, as the impairment of view and proximity of the new structure would significantly diminish its value. The Town Planning Regulations regarding rear space were also breached, as the required...

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Gregory Joseph Paola; Respondent: Jaivadan Jeeva N.O; Respondent: Tarulata Jeeva N.O; Respondent: North and South Central Local Council
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2003
Case Number
475/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; approval of building plans set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Judges
Farlam, Howie, Lewis, Heher, Motata
Legal Topics
Building Regulations, Jurisdictional Facts, Review of Administrative Action, Town Planning, Derogation of Property Value, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Building Regulations Jurisdictional Facts Review of Administrative Action Town Planning Derogation of Property Value +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory Joseph Paola

Appellant

Jaivadan Jeeva N.O

Respondent

Tarulata Jeeva N.O

Respondent

North and South Central Local Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the third respondent's approval of building plans was invalid due to the absence of a building control officer and failure to consider a recommendation from such officer.
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development would derogate from the value of the appellant's property, precluding approval under section 7(1)(b)(ii)(aa)(ccc) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act.
  3. 3 Whether the approval of plans breached Town Planning Regulations regarding rear space requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the third respondent's approval of the building plans was invalid because it failed to appoint a building control officer and did not consider a recommendation from such officer, as required by the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. These requirements are jurisdictional facts, and their absence renders the approval void. The court further found that the proposed development would derogate from the market value of the appellant's property, as the impairment of view and proximity of the new structure would significantly diminish its value. The Town Planning Regulations regarding rear space were also breached, as the required...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; approval of building plans set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the out-of-pocket expenses of the appellant's two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: (a) The third respondent's decision on or about 13 April 2000 to approve the amended plans submitted by the J Jeeva Family Trust under plan number 0503/02/99/7 in respect of certain alterations to be carried out on the immovable property described as...