University of Pretoria v Roger and Others (61693/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1203 (18 September 2023)

University of Pretoria v Roger and Others (61693/2019) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1203 (18 September 2023)

The University established that the respondents, particularly the Jolly Roger and other pubs, were operating in violation of the permissible land use rights under the Pretoria Town Planning Scheme by conducting business as places of amusement without proper consent. The evidence showed that excessive noise emanated from the premises, constituting a nuisance affecting the University's students. Although the Jolly Roger implemented noise mitigation measures and recent expert reports indicated compliance with noise levels, the contravention of land use rights persisted. The terms of the liquor licence do not override land use rights, and the respondents must operate within the confines of...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1203
Parties
Applicant: University of Pretoria; Respondent: Jolly Roger; Respondent: Latino's Bistro; Respondent: Jukes; Respondent: Fokofbar; Respondent: The Grind Bar; Respondent: Nix Kas Properties CC; Respondent: Varsity Bakery (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Erf 8[....] Menlo Park (PTY) LTD; Respondent: Owl Eye Trading 10 (PTY) LTD; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2023
Case Number
61693/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict and Costs
Outcome
Interdicts granted against respondents for violation of land use rights and creation of noise nuisance; interdict for noise nuisance against Jolly Roger refused due to current compliance; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Noise Nuisance, Land Use Rights, Interdict, Liquor Licensing, Landlord Liability, Town Planning Scheme
Land and Property Delict Civil Procedure Noise Nuisance Land Use Rights Interdict Liquor Licensing Landlord Liability +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

University of Pretoria

Applicant

Jolly Roger

Respondent

Latino's Bistro

Respondent

Jukes

Respondent

Fokofbar

Respondent

The Grind Bar

Respondent

Nix Kas Properties CC

Respondent

Varsity Bakery (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Erf 8[....] Menlo Park (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Owl Eye Trading 10 (PTY) LTD

Respondent

The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are conducting business in violation of permissible land use rights under the Pretoria Town Planning Scheme.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are creating a noise nuisance in excess of permissible noise levels affecting the University and its students.
  3. 3 Whether the landowners are liable for unlawful conduct and nuisance created by their tenants.

Ratio Decidendi

The University established that the respondents, particularly the Jolly Roger and other pubs, were operating in violation of the permissible land use rights under the Pretoria Town Planning Scheme by conducting business as places of amusement without proper consent. The evidence showed that excessive noise emanated from the premises, constituting a nuisance affecting the University's students. Although the Jolly Roger implemented noise mitigation measures and recent expert reports indicated compliance with noise levels, the contravention of land use rights persisted. The terms of the liquor licence do not override land use rights, and the respondents must operate within the confines of...

Court Disposition

Interdicts granted against respondents for violation of land use rights and creation of noise nuisance; interdict for noise nuisance against Jolly Roger refused due to current compliance; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • First, second, third, fifth and ninth respondents are interdicted and restrained from conducting any business in violation of the permissible land use rights as contained in the Pretoria Town Planning Scheme, on Erf 8[....], Erf 1[....] and Erf [....]0 Menlo Park respectively.
  • Second, third and fifth respondents are interdicted and restrained from creating, or allowing anyone to create a noise nuisance at Erfs 1[….] and Erf [....]0 Menlo Park respectively, including any noise in excess of permissible noise levels permitted by the land use rights applicable to the properties.