van Rensburg NO and Another v Naidoo NO and Others (2732/2011) [2013] ZAECPEHC 42 (20 June 2013)

van Rensburg NO and Another v Naidoo NO and Others (2732/2011) [2013] ZAECPEHC 42 (20 June 2013)

The court found that the respondents had persistently delayed compliance with the demolition order, relying on hopes of municipal intervention and providing contradictory explanations for their conduct. The applicants acted reasonably and fairly throughout, agreeing to multiple extensions. The respondents' conduct, including their failure to bring an application for further extension and their resistance to the present application, justified a punitive costs order. The court granted a final extension until 15 July 2013 for demolition, declared it to be the last extension, and ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Wilma Emmerentia van Rensburg N.O; Applicant: Philippus Stephanus van Rensburg N.O; Respondent: Perapanjakam Naidoo N.O; Respondent: Pursotham Naidoo N.O; Respondent: Shashi Naidoo N.O; Respondent: Anthosh Naidoo N.O; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2013
Case Number
2732/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Variation and Final Extension of Demolition Order; Costs Determination
Outcome
Application granted. Final extension for demolition until 15 July 2013. Respondents ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
J M Roberson
Legal Topics
Restrictive Title Deed Conditions, Contempt of Court, Demolition Order, Variation of Court Order, Punitive Costs, Trusteeship Dispute
Land and Property Civil Procedure Restrictive Title Deed Conditions Contempt of Court Demolition Order Variation of Court Order Punitive Costs Trusteeship Dispute

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilma Emmerentia van Rensburg N.O

Applicant

Philippus Stephanus van Rensburg N.O

Applicant

Perapanjakam Naidoo N.O

Respondent

Pursotham Naidoo N.O

Respondent

Shashi Naidoo N.O

Respondent

Anthosh Naidoo N.O

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Variation and Final Extension of Demolition Order; Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be granted a final extension to comply with the demolition order.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct justified a punitive costs order including costs of two counsel.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants acted reasonably in bringing the present application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had persistently delayed compliance with the demolition order, relying on hopes of municipal intervention and providing contradictory explanations for their conduct. The applicants acted reasonably and fairly throughout, agreeing to multiple extensions. The respondents' conduct, including their failure to bring an application for further extension and their resistance to the present application, justified a punitive costs order. The court granted a final extension until 15 July 2013 for demolition, declared it to be the last extension, and ordered the respondents to pay the applicants' costs on the attorney and client scale, including costs of two...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Final extension for demolition until 15 July 2013. Respondents ordered to pay costs on attorney and client scale, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The order of Revelas J dated 5 March 2013 is varied: the date 31 March 2013 in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 is replaced with 15 July 2013.
  • It is declared that the extension until 15 July 2013 is the final extension for the first to fourth respondents to comply with paragraphs 2 and 3 of Froneman J’s order dated 3 April 2007 under case number 1668/2006 by demolishing the structures.