South Africa Case Law

City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Aisa and Another (00829/2022)

City Of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Aisa and Another (00829/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1092 (28 September 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

00829/2022

Judge

Fisher

The court found that the use of the property for religious instruction was unlawful as it contravened the zoning scheme and statutory provisions binding both owners and users. The owner may not lease the property for prohibited purposes, and the City is entitled to interdict both owner and tenant. The technical defences of non-joinder and misjoinder raised by the second respondent did not preclude relief, as the organization’s interest was derivative and not direct or substantial. The first respondent did not oppose the application, and the second respondent’s opposition was limited to techni…

Source excerpt

• Zoning Scheme Enforcement
• Municipal Planning By Law
• Unlawful Land Use
• Interdictory Relief

Hetherington and Others v Boat House Langebaan (Pty) Ltd and Another (15777/2022)

Hetherington and Others v Boat House Langebaan (Pty) Ltd and Another (15777/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 132 (24 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15777/2022

Judge

Meer

The court found that the First Respondent's use of the property for short-term rentals, events, and commercial activities is unlawful and in contravention of the Saldanha Bay Municipal Integrated Zoning Scheme By-Law. The zoning scheme provides for specific primary and consent uses, and the activities conducted by the First Respondent fall outside these permitted uses. The scheme's definitions of 'dwelling house', 'dwelling unit', and 'family' do not accommodate the commercial and transient uses described. The Respondent's argument that any use not expressly prohibited is permitted was reject…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Zoning Scheme
• Unlawful Land Use
• Interdictory Relief
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management Act
• Nuisance
• Consent Use

Du Plessis v Labuschagne and Others (3799/2016)

Du Plessis v Labuschagne and Others (3799/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 24 (16 February 2017)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3799/2016

Judge

Nicholson, AJ

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right as a neighbouring property owner, a reasonable apprehension of harm due to the unlawful use of the property, and that criminal prosecution under section 41 of the Ordinance does not constitute a satisfactory alternative remedy. Criminal prosecution is discretionary, retrospective, and does not guarantee cessation of the unlawful conduct. The court held that interdicts are the appropriate remedy to enforce zoning restrictions and prevent ongoing unlawful land use. The application for a final interdict was granted, but its operati…

Source excerpt

• Town Planning Scheme
• Title Deed Restrictions
• Final Interdict
• Alternative Remedy
• Unlawful Land Use

Western Crown Properties 113 (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Trustees From Time to Time of the Mkonza Family Trust and Another (13699/2013)

Western Crown Properties 113 (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Trustees From Time to Time of the Mkonza Family Trust and Another (13699/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 596 (30 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

13699/2013

Judge

M D Mohlamonyane

The court found that the respondents were aware of the order and had failed to comply with its terms by not removing vehicles, material, machinery and equipment related to unlawful use of the property within the stipulated period. Photographic and satellite evidence demonstrated ongoing business and industrial activity, dumping of rubble, and storage of materials in contravention of the title conditions and environmental law. The respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of wilfulness and mala fides in their non-compliance. The supplementary affidavits and lette…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Title Conditions
• Unlawful Land Use
• National Environmental Management Act
• Burden Of Proof
• Motion Proceedings

SNAPS Shot Investments 1465 CC and Another v Centre for Autism Research And Education and Others (21618/2013)

SNAPS Shot Investments 1465 CC and Another v Centre for Autism Research And Education and Others (21618/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 227 (19 September 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21618/2013

Judge

SS Mphahlele

The High Court interdicted an autism centre and related school activities on residentially zoned land, suspending the order for 60 days to allow regularisation.

• Town Planning Scheme
• Zoning Consent
• Unlawful Land Use
• Interdictory Relief
• Zoning-consent
• Unlawful-land-use

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v United Methodist Church of Southern Africa (UMCOSA) (EL1327/13, ECD2827/13)

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality v United Methodist Church of Southern Africa (UMCOSA) (EL1327/13, ECD2827/13) [2014] ZAECELLC 14 (26 June 2014)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL1327/13, ECD2827/13

Judge

P L C Maseti

The court held that a church’s use of a residentially zoned property as an office contravened Buffalo City zoning rules and granted a final interdict.

• Zoning Scheme Regulations
• Final Interdict
• Local Government Powers
• Unlawful Land Use
• Zoning
• Final-interdict

Educated Risk Investments 165 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (41961/12)

Educated Risk Investments 165 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (41961/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 451 (6 May 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41961/12

Judge

M M MABESELE

The High Court held that the applicants had standing to enforce the town-planning scheme, but dismissed their challenge to the municipality’s housing development.

• Town Planning Scheme
• Unlawful Land Use
• Standing To Interdict
• Compliance With Conditions
• Town-planning
• Zoning

Emilel Investments (Pty) Ltd v Silvestri and Others (080/2012)

Emilel Investments (Pty) Ltd v Silvestri and Others (080/2012) [2012] ZASCA 181 (29 November 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

080/2012

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Malan, Petse, Plasket

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a soccer centre and craft market on school property were unlawful commercial uses under the zoning scheme.

• Zoning Scheme Regulations
• Unlawful Land Use
• Municipal Consent
• Interdict
• Costs Order
• Zoning-scheme-regulations

Frater NO and Others v Drakenstein Municipality and Another (6214/2010, 19763/2010)

Frater NO and Others v Drakenstein Municipality and Another (6214/2010, 19763/2010) [2011] ZAWCHC 149 (17 February 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6214/2010 & 19763/2010

Judge

Cloete

The court found that the order made against the Trust was prohibitory, not mandatory, and that the Trust had unlawfully permitted the operation of a restaurant on its premises without the requisite statutory approvals. The lease concluded with Windfall 32 Restaurant (Pty) Ltd was invalid, as the Trust could not pass lawful rights it did not possess. Recognition of such a lease would sanction the very conduct the legislature intended to prevent. The Trust's argument that it could not comply with the order due to the lease was rejected, as the lease itself was a nullity. The court held that non…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Land Use
• Building Regulations
• Prohibitory Interdict
• Validity Of Contract
• Contempt Of Court

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Grobler and Others (21887/04)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Grobler and Others (21887/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 22; 2005 (6) SA 61 (T) (23 February 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

21887/04

Judge

B.R. Southwood

The respondents' use of the property for a funeral undertaker and morgue is in clear contravention of the Pretoria Town-Planning Scheme, which zones the property as 'special residential' and does not permit such business use. The issuance of a fitness certificate under the Health Act is irrelevant to the zoning requirements and does not constitute consent for the use of the property contrary to the scheme. The pending rezoning application does not legalise the current unlawful use, and the respondents' continued operation despite multiple contravention notices constitutes deliberate flouting…

Source excerpt

• Town Planning Scheme Enforcement
• Unlawful Land Use
• Local Authority Powers
• Interdict
• Costs Order