Witwatersrand Estates Ltd v Century Property Developments (Pty) Ltd and Another (70603/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 733 (3 October 2022)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
70603/2018
Judge
N Davis
The court dismissed an interdict application over a property development dispute, finding no breach of the servitude documents and refusing specific performance.
Smith en Andere v Kleinfontein Boerebelange Kooperatief Bpk en Andere (28685/2010) [2016] ZAGPPHC 628 (22 April 2016)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
28685/2010
Judge
DS Fourie
The court dismissed a bid to compel township registration and stop development at Kleinfontein, finding no clear or prima facie right and making no costs order.
City of Johannesburg v Horizon Bay Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (30293/11) [2011] ZAGPJHC 204 (8 December 2011)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
30293/11
Judge
Willis
The City of Johannesburg sought to stop spray-painting and panel beating at Longmeadow, but the court found no properly gazetted prohibition and dismissed the application with costs.
Club Mykonos Langebaan Ltd v Langebaan Country Estate Joint Venture and Others (10278/2006) [2008] ZAWCHC 223 (24 July 2008)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
10278/2006
Judge
Koen AJ
The court held that subdivision conditions required the full link road to be shown on the plans and ordered the developer and municipality to comply and enforce compliance.
De Leeuw and Others v MEC Local Government and Housing Free State and Others (420/05) [2006] ZASCA 89; [2006] SCA 88 (RSA) (18 August 2006)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
420/05
Judges
Brand, Harms, Farlam, Malan, Cachalia
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a review of a refusal to amend a town-planning scheme, holding that the decision was rational and procedurally fair.
Paola v Jeeva NO and Others (475/2002) [2003] ZASCA 100; [2003] 4 All SA 433 (SCA); 2004 (1) SA 396 (SCA) (26 September 2003)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
475/2002
Judges
Farlam, Howie, Lewis, Heher, Motata
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the third respondent's approval of the building plans was invalid because it failed to appoint a building control officer and did not consider a recommendation from such officer, as required by the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. These requirements are jurisdictional facts, and their absence renders the approval void. The court further found that the proposed development would derogate from the market value of the appellant's property, as the impairment of view and proximity of the new structure would significantly diminish its v…
