South Africa Case Law

Section 99 Claridge Court Shareblock (Pty) Ltd v Pino's General Trading CC and Others (3692/2024)

Section 99 Claridge Court Shareblock (Pty) Ltd v Pino's General Trading CC and Others (3692/2024) [2025] ZAKZDHC 3 (17 January 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3692/2024

Judge

Dayal AJ

The High Court dismissed an application to remove an unlawful wall on sectional title common property because the applicant failed to prove a clear right.

• Sectional Title Scheme Management
• Mandatory Interdict
• Locus Standi
• Illegal Structure
• Ventilation Rights
• Sectional-title-scheme-management

Fire Wings Properties 21 (PTY) Ltd v Sunrise Technologies (PTY) Ltd and Others (2020/16177)

Fire Wings Properties 21 (PTY) Ltd v Sunrise Technologies (PTY) Ltd and Others (2020/16177) [2022] ZAGPJHC 750 (27 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/16177

Judge

A Bester

The court found that the defence of lis alibi pendens was not available to the first respondent because the applicant was not a party to the other pending litigation, and the requirements for the defence were not met. The advertising sign was held to be illegal as it contravened the City of Johannesburg Outdoor Advertising By-laws, lacking both approval and exemption, and being situated too close to the intersection. The court rejected the argument that the City’s transitional period or 'moratorium' on enforcement prevented the applicant from seeking relief, holding that the By-laws remained…

Source excerpt

• Outdoor Advertising By Laws
• Illegal Structure
• Locus Standi
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Municipal Regulation

Dyecomber (Pty) Ltd and Another v East Coast Papers CC (AR 469/12)

Dyecomber (Pty) Ltd and Another v East Coast Papers CC (AR 469/12) [2013] ZAKZPHC 61 (7 November 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR 469/12

Judges

Koen, Lopes, Chili

The court held that the encroaching structure was illegal, as no building plans had been approved by the municipality. In terms of section 4 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act and the principle of legality, the court had no discretion to permit the illegal structure to remain, regardless of whether the application was brought by a neighbour or the municipality. The non-joinder of the municipality was fatal to the appellants' counter-application for compensation, as the municipality had a direct and substantial interest in any order permitting the illegal structure…

Source excerpt

• Illegal Structure
• Building Regulations
• Encroachment
• Removal Of Structure
• Compensation For Encroachment
• Non Joinder