South Africa Case Law

Pillay and Another v Moonsamy and Another (D6707/21)

Pillay and Another v Moonsamy and Another (D6707/21) [2024] ZAKZDHC 35 (5 June 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D6707/21

Judge

Davis

The court found that the respondents' roof structure encroaches onto the applicants' property by 78cm, as confirmed by the applicants' land surveyor and not meaningfully disputed by the respondents. The respondents' denial was unsupported by countervailing measurements or substantive evidence. The historical nature of the structure and its approval by municipal plans do not absolve the current owners of liability for the encroachment. South African law protects property rights and provides that the registered owner is responsible for correcting encroachments. The court determined that no bona…

Source excerpt

• Encroachment
• Mandatory Interdict
• Property Boundaries
• Removal Of Structure

Kerfkhof and Another v Pieterse (55641/12)

Kerfkhof and Another v Pieterse (55641/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 34 (19 February 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55641/12

Judge

Mogotsi

High Court order requiring removal of a carport encroaching on neighbours’ property. The respondent’s points in limine on joinder, prescription and factual disputes failed.

• Encroachment
• Non Joinder
• Prescription Act
• Ownership Dispute
• Removal Of Structure
• Property-law

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