Red Ant Relocation and Eviction Services and Others v Crouse and Others (14651/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 66 (29 May 2019)

Red Ant Relocation and Eviction Services and Others v Crouse and Others (14651/2017) [2019] ZAWCHC 66 (29 May 2019)

The court found that the relief sought regarding the demolition of structures was rendered moot by the first respondent's voluntary demolition prior to the hearing. The applicants were not entitled to further substantive relief, particularly regarding raising the boundary wall, as this would contravene the development rules contractually binding on all property owners. The applicants' persistence in seeking unattainable relief and refusal of a reasonable settlement offer did not justify a costs award in their favour. The court held that not all disputes in this matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service, and thus the applicants were not penalised for...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Red Ant Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Abraham Johannes Bosch; Applicant: Lizet Merle Bosch; Applicant: Abigail Christy Loubser; Respondent: Benita Crouse; Respondent: André Bosch; Respondent: Harbour Island Home Owners’ Association; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2019
Case Number
14651/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed as moot regarding demolition; no order made on remaining relief; no order as to costs.
Judges
Binns-Ward
Legal Topics
Building Regulations, Boundary Disputes, Community Scheme Ombud, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Building Regulations Boundary Disputes Community Scheme Ombud Costs Award

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Ant Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Abraham Johannes Bosch

Applicant

Lizet Merle Bosch

Applicant

Abigail Christy Loubser

Applicant

Benita Crouse

Respondent

André Bosch

Respondent

Harbour Island Home Owners’ Association

Respondent

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the structures erected by the first respondent were compliant with approved building plans and applicable building regulations.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were entitled to demolition and interdictory relief regarding the structures.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants were entitled to raise the boundary wall contrary to development rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relief sought regarding the demolition of structures was rendered moot by the first respondent's voluntary demolition prior to the hearing. The applicants were not entitled to further substantive relief, particularly regarding raising the boundary wall, as this would contravene the development rules contractually binding on all property owners. The applicants' persistence in seeking unattainable relief and refusal of a reasonable settlement offer did not justify a costs award in their favour. The court held that not all disputes in this matter fell within the jurisdiction of the Community Schemes Ombud Service, and thus the applicants were not penalised for...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed as moot regarding demolition; no order made on remaining relief; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • No order is made in respect of the relief sought in terms of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the notice of motion by reason of it having been rendered moot upon the demolition of the outside braai, wooden deck and pergola.
  • It is recorded that the applicants did not persist at the hearing in seeking the relief set forth in paragraphs 4 to 7 of the notice of motion.