About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2011
>>
[2011] ZAGPPHC 85
|
|
University of Pretoria v Freefall Trading 17 CC t/a Aandklas (75127/2009) [2011] ZAGPPHC 85 (16 February 2011)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG DIVISION)
CASE
NO: 75127/2009
DATE:16/02/2011
In the matter between:
THE UNIVERSITY OF
PRETORIA
..................................................................................
Applicant
and
FREEFALL TRADING 17 CC
t/a AANDKLAS
.....................................................
1st
Respondent
OOSTHUIZEN,
MARKUS
......................................................................................
2
nd
Respondent
PETOUSIS
PROPERTY INVESTMENT
CC
........................................................
3rd Respondent
CORAM:
EBERSOHN AJ
DATE
HEARD: 15TH SEPTEMBER 2010
DATE JUDGMENT HANDED
DOWN: 16th FEBRUARY 2011
JUDGMENT
EBERSOHN AJ
[1]
The applicant is the University of Pretoria ("the University")
which has various hostels for students inter alia a
hostel known as
"Madelief with its street address being 1107 Prospect Street,
Hatfield, Pretoria, on the property being a
13 storey building
wherein 315 female students reside and another hostel close to
"Madelief being known as "Magrietjie”
,also in
Prospect Street, being an 11 storey building in which approximately
328 female students reside
.
[2]
The first respondent is a close corporation conducting the business
known as "Aandklas" on the property known as Portion
2 of
the Remainder of Erf 179, Hatfield, Pretoria ("the property").
It appears from the papers that Aandklas is a business
where food,
beverages and intoxicating liquor is sold to mainly younger people.
Aandklas is in an area close to the campus of the
University and
which is frequented by many students of the University.
[3]
The second respondent is cited as the person in control of and
managing the affairs of the first respondent and he is also a
member
of the first respondent.
[4]
The third respondent is a close corporation and is the owner of the
fixed property referred to in paragraph [2] of this judgment.
[5]
The University applied for an order against the respondents
interdicting and restraining them, firstly, from engaging in any
activity in contravention of the Pretoria Town Planning Scheme and in
particular from conducting any form of business falling outside
the
Land Use Rights afforded in terms of the Pretoria Town Planning
Scheme in respect of the property referred to in paragraph
[2] of
this judgment, and, secondly, from playing loud music on the property
and causing loud noise emanating from the property
thereby creating a
nuisance (see: East London Western Districts Farmers' Association v
Minister of Education & Development
Aid
[1988] ZASCA 172
;
[1989] 2 All SA 163
(A),
1989 (2) SA 63
(A); Allaclas Investments (Pty) Ltd. v Milnerton Golf
Club
[2008] 2 All SA 163
(A),
2008 (3) SA 134
(SCA); Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan Municipality & Others v Greyvenouw CC & Others
2004 (2) SA 81
(SE)), and inconveniencing the staff and students
residing in the said two hostels in the sense that they could not
study, sleep
and rest whilst the noise was being made on the premises
of Aandklas, and ordering the respondents to take whatever steps may
be
necessary to curtail and limit loud noise, and thus the actionable
nuisance, emanating from the said property.
[6]
The application is opposed by all the respondents. The respondents
filed their answering papers late and the first and second
respondents sought condonation of the late filing which condonation
application is opposed by the applicant. The third respondent
did not
file a condonation application.
[7]
The first and second respondents filed their answering affidavit on
the 18th August 2010, in other words, more than about seven
months
late.
[8]
The two respondents advanced as reasons for and as excuses for the
late filing of the answering affidavit the following as appears
from
paragraph 6 of the answering affidavit:
a) that they only
managed to consult with their attorneys "early during 2010
at
which stage it was decided that we would file a notice of
intention to oppose". The wording of this paragraph is vague and
the court is kept in the dark as to
i) why it was only then
consulted; and
ii) the exact date on
which the consultation was held;
b) that there was
correspondence between the attorneys of the applicant and of
the
first and second respondents and:
"(A)lthough
it seems to be the attitude of the Applicant that the formal
proceedings must proceed the First and Second Respondents
were under
the
bona fide
impression that this matter may still be settled
and do not want to incur any unnecessary costs."
It appears from the
correspondence between the parties that at all times, however, it was
the contention of the applicant to proceed
with the matter in court
and it is not clear how and on what basis the first and second
respondents could have formed any such
impression that the matter
could be settled seeing that they were not agreeable to comply with
the applicant's request that they
comply with the law;
c) that the second
respondent, who was allegedly acquainted with all the facts,
was
employed in Stellenbosch and due to work obligations there could
not
readily be consulted. The wording of this paragraph was also
very vague and
the court is kept in the dark as to
i)
when he was in fact consulted;
ii)
why he could not travel to Pretoria sooner and if necessary more
than
once to finalise the answering affidavit.
[9]
As pointed out the court has considerable difficulty with the excuses
advanced and the secretive nature of the second respondent's
work
which kept him occupied in Stellenbosch was not stated and no details
were imparted as to when and how he tried to get permission
from his
employer to be absent from his place of employment to attend the
consultations. It was noticed by the court, however,
from information
imparted on page 384 of the record that there was also an Aandklas in
Stellenbosch too. Perhaps the reason for
the secrecy was
inadvertently divulged through the advertisement of Aandklas on that
page.
[10]
The court must refer to the two acoustics reports which were attached
as annexures "R05" and "R06" to the
answering
affidavit of the first and second respondents:
a) the two respondents
seem to heavily rely on the two reports;
b) the first report was
dated the 11th June 2007 i.e. long before the application was served
on the respondents and in the report
proved that the first and second
respondents themselves were concerned regarding the excessive noise
emanating from the premises
of Aandklas and the second report was
dated the 13th August 2010, in other words, about 8 months after the
application was served
on the respondents and one month before the
matter was heard by the court and this report also proved the
applicant's case although
the reports were very vague as to when
certain noise measurements were done "during nighttime" and
no explanation was
given as to the exact time the measurements were
done.
The
court will later deal in more detail with the two reports.
[11]
With regard to the condonation application of the first and second
respondents the applicant responded as follows:
a) the application was
served early in December 2009. As the two respondents did not file a
notice of opposition the applicant set
the matter down on the
unopposed roll of the 23rd February 2010 for an order by default;
b) only after the
applicant's attorneys advised the attorneys of the first and second
respondent that if they did not file a notice
of opposition the
applicant would proceed to obtain relief by default, whereupon, and
out of time, a notice of opposition was filed;
c) the answering
affidavit was filed more than seven months late and by stating that
his was done designedly so as to make it extremely
difficult for the
applicant to comprehensively respond to the answering papers;
d) that as the attorneys
of the first and second respondents were warned timeously that they
should procedurally comply with the
court rules, the two respondents
could not have formed any impression that "as the matter would
be settled" they need
not comply with the court rules regarding
a notice of opposition and the filing of an answering affidavit;
e) they contended
ultimately that the first and second respondents have made out no
case for condonation and that the merits of
the case in any case was
totally against the respondents.
[12]
The third respondents filed its answering affidavit on the 24th March
2010 in other words many months late.
[13]
In its answering affidavit it did not indicate that it intended
applying for condonation of the late filing thereof.
[14]
The first and second respondents raised two points
in limine
in their answering affidavit:
a) There was a misjoinder
regarding the second respondent in the application.
The papers
clearly show, however, that the second respondent was
managing
Aandklas in Pretoria at the relevant time, he was on the
admission of the first
and second respondent's in their
condonation application, the one with
knowledge of all that went
on at the relevant time at Aandklas in Pretoria and
he acquired
the knowledge clearly whilst managing Aandklas and there
is
accordingly no merit in this point
in limine
.
b)
i) The deponent on behalf of the first and second respondents stated
in
paragraph 2.7 of the
answering affidavit
"the
applicant is attempting to enforce The Tshwane Town \ Planning
Scheme, 2008. I associate myself with the Third Respondent's
contention that the Applicant is attempting to enforce rights that
vests in the general public and should be enforced by the relevant
authorities."
ii) It is not clear what
this statement was supposed to mean. If it was supposed to mean that
only the municipality had a right
of action against the respondents
regarding the actionable nuisance, that is clearly wrong.
iii) The deponent also
stated the following in paragraph 2.8 of the said affidavit:
"...it is humbly
submitted that the Applicant has no locus standi to enforce personal
rights of its students. The right which
the Applicant claims to
protect, belong to its students and not to the Applicant I am advised
that it is trite that no party may
litigate in a representative
capacity."
iv) In Municipality of
Stellenbosch v Levinsohn
1911 CPD 303
the court found that a
municipality may act in respect of a nuisance affecting its
inhabitants generally. The University may similarly
act as it did in
the present instance and there is no merit in the second point
in
limine
too.
[15]
The counsel of the first and second respondents raised the following
four alleged points
in limine
in his heads of argument and did
not deal at all with the merits of the application itself in his
heads:
a) the alleged
misjoinder of the second respondent with which point the court
already dealt with;
b) that if prayer 1.2
was granted it would create uncertainty and would be incapable of
enforcement. It is so that the term "loud
music" used in
prayer 1.2 is rather vague and when a court grants relief the order
will be more specific and would be quite
capable of being enforced;
c) that the applicant
has an alternative remedy and that the applicant suddenly and without
first warning the respondents brought
the application. There is no
merit in this point as according to the papers, as will be
illustrated later in this judgment, the
first and second respondents
acted with full knowledge that they were in the wrong and disregarded
the clear rights of the University
and the students and the
provisions of the Town Planning Scheme, all for financial gain. There
is no merit in this point too.
d) that the applicant
failed to prove the Pretoria Town Planning Scheme and its contents:
i) In paragraph 96 of
the founding affidavit the applicant explicitly stated that the
property was to be used as a place of refreshment
and the applicable
portion of the Town Planning Scheme with regard to the property was
quoted and reads as follows:
"The
erven shall be consolidated and shall be used only for the purposes
of places of refreshment, business buildings, dwelling
units and
certain restricted industries, which are normally associated with a
shopping centre and which create no danger or nuisance
of noise,
dust, smoke, fumes or smell, such as a bakery, subject to the
following conditions...."
ii)
The definition of a "place of refreshment" in the Town
Planning Scheme appears in paragraph 8.6 on page 138 of the
record as
follows:
"PLACE OF
REFRESHMENT
Means land and buildings
or a part of a building used for the preparation, sale and
consumption of refreshment on the property such
as a restaurant,
cafe, coffee shop, tea room, tea garden, sports bar, pub, bar, and
may include take-aways and a maximum of two
table games, two
dartboards, two electronic games, television screens and soft
background music for the customers but excludes
a place of amusement.
The kitchen layout shall comply with the Municipality's health
regulations."
iii)
"Background" relating to music is defined in the New
Shorter Oxford Dictionary as follows:
"background: 6.
music or sound-effects used as an accompaniment; a less prominent
position, obscured, retirement; treat as
unimportant, give no
emphasis to."
There is clearly a vast
difference between "background" music and music being
played loudly through amplifiers and loudspeakers
with a prominent
thumping beat, causing students inconvenience and stress.
iv)
The definition of a "place of amusement" In the Town
Planning Scheme, also appears in paragraph 8.6 on page 138 of
the
record as follows:
"PLACE OF AMUSEMENT
Means
land and buildings or a part of a building used for entertainment
purposes such as a theatre, cinema, music hall, concert
hall, table
games, skating rink, dancing, amusement park, casino, electronic
games, night club, an exhibition hall or sports arena/stadium
used
for live concerts or performances."
v) The owner of the
property, the third respondent, admitted the contents
of paragraph
96 of the founding affidavit in paragraph 32 of its
answering
affidavit to the effect that the property's zoning allowed "a
place
of refershment" to be conducted on the property and not "a
place
of amusement"
vi)
The first and second respondents also did not dispute, in paragraph
59 of their answering affidavit wherein they dealt with
paragraph 96
of the founding affidavit, what was stated by the applicant in
paragraph 96 namely that the property was zoned for
a place of
refreshment only and not as a place of amusement, and merely
contended that they
conducted a place of refreshment on the
property and not a place of amusement.
vii) It is therefore not
clear upon which facts the counsel based this point in
limine
and it cannot succeed.
[16]
The third respondent's counsel advanced a peculiar point
in limine
against the applicant's
locus standi
. He stated, without
referring to any authority, that the applicant, being a university,
must prove patrimonial damages to have
locus standi
in terms
of the Town Planning Scheme. The court already referred to the
Levinsohn case in this regard. There is no merit in this
point and it
is not necessary to further deal with it.
[17]
As the merits of the matter must also be considered when a court
decides on the issue of condonation the court will proceed
to deal
with and consider the merits.
[18]
Aandklas and Madelief are on opposite sides of Prospect Street right
across the street from each other and are, as the crow
flies, about
50 metres apart and the other residence, Magrietjie, is about 80
metres away from Aandklas. Aandklas does business
in a residence
modified for restaurant purposes. The deponent to the applicant's
founding affidavit, Yolanda Jordaan, is in the
employ of the
University, and is the head of Magrietjie and she resides in it.
Jordaan is clearly acquainted with what is happening
in the area.
Jordaan's duties are to enforce, at the said residences, the
applicable rules and regulations of the applicant, to
attend to
complaints of the students and to generally control and manage the
hostels in such a way so as to ensure a safe environment
for the
students and to create an atmosphere which is conducive to study.
[19]
According to the papers Aandklas conducts a business which the
applicant described as a place of amusement and sells food and
alcoholic beverages to members of the public, predominantly young
persons who gather there socially and listen to the music played
and
to live music. At the outside of Aandklas's building there is an open
air space with an awning over it and there are tables
and chairs.
Inside the building itself there are further tables and chairs where
customers can enjoy food and drinks. There is
also a so-called bar
area where customers can order and enjoy drinks.
[20]
According to the founding affidavit and supporting affidavits
Aandklas opens relative late in the morning, about at noon, and
then
remains open quite often until the early hours of the next morning.
Music is played by Aandklas through amplifiers and loudspeakers
and
during some evenings of the week Aandklas would have live bands
playing music loudly through amplifiers and loudspeakers. In
this
regard the court need only further refer to the numerous supporting
affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant and petition
attached to
the founding affidavit wherein displeasure is voiced concerning the
loud noise emanating from Aandklas, so loud that
the students in
Magrietjie and Madelief could not rest, sleep and study. Numerous
letters were addressed on behalf of the University
to Aandklas
regarding the noise emanating from Aandklas and the whole sordid
history of complaints against Aandklas and the excessive
noise
emanating from it is fully detailed in the founding papers.
[21]
At all relevant times there existed the NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS
-GAUTENG (General Notice 5479 in Provincial Gazette 75 of
20 August
1999) and "disturbing noise " is defined therein as
follows:
"disturbing noise"
means a noise level that causes the ambient noise level to rise above
the designated zone levels, or
if no zone level has been designated,
the typical rating noise elevls for ambient noise in districts,
indicated in Table 2 of SABS
0103;"
[22]
The papers also show that numerous approaches regarding the excessive
and disturbing noise emanating from Aandklas were made
on behalf of
the University to the first and second respondents, and despite
promises from the management of Aandklas, proved to
be without
success.
[23]
The first and second respondents met the attack of the applicant
against the excessive noise and thus the actionable nuisance,
with a
denial that excessive noise emanated from Aandklas and by asserting
that Aandklas was operated strictly as a place of refreshment.
It is
necessary, in this regard to refer to a letter dated the 23rd August
2007 from Marcus Oosthuizen, the second respondent,
on behalf of
Aandklas to one Joel Fourie, wherein activities scheduled by Aandklas
from the 7th September 2007 to the 20th October
2007 were detailed
which included music in a tent on Aandklas's premises and broadcasts
of sports events in the tent. The then
current daily programme was
detailed as follows in the letter:
"Monday Music
Tuesday Music
Wednesday
Quiz nights
Thursday
Rock Thursday
Friday
Music
Saturday
Music
Sunday
F1 Cup on F1 days. No music."
[24]
In paragraph 14.4.4 (p. 272 of the record) of the answering affidavit
of the first and second respondents it was stated that
Aandklas
trades strictly until 0200 in the mornings and by 0130 to 0140
switched of the music so as to convey the message to patrons
that
Aandklas would be closing soon.
[25]
In paragraph 14.4.6 (page 273 of the record) it was denied that
Aandklas ever held karaoke nights where amateurs could sing.
It was
also stated:
" First Respondent
has housed live bands on two 2 occasions over the past couple of
years. A decision was taken that it is
not cost effective and as such
First Respondent has no intention of ever again hosting a live band."
[26]
That the first and second respondents were blatantly lying in this
regard is clear if regard is had to the following:
a) Annexure REP3 on page
377 of the record where a copy of the Website of Aandklas appears and
indicated clearly:
"Venue info: A
rock/metal bar in Pretoria's Hatfield Square with regular live music
nights."
b) On page 379 a copy of
the Website of Aandklas under "Features"
stated
unequivocally that the following were to be found at
Aandklas (quoted
verbatim):
Bar
* live entertainment.
Rock and Alternative
music with quizz nights and other student fun."
c) On page 381 of the
record appears a printout from the Internet wherein it is
stated,
with reference to Aandklas under the heading "Anything else you
need
to know?,"
"Rock, metal and
alternative student bar close to the university. Bands usually play
here and they also have themed nights."
d) Pages 383-384 of the
record are copies of Aandklas's advertisement which
appeared on an
internet programme called "Twitter" and advertised the
following on the 26th August 2010 (i.e. about three
weeks before the
matter was heard in this court):
"Follow Aandklas to
your local code", and the code applicable in various overseas
countries, eg. Australia, Canada, United
Kingdom, Indonesia and
Ireland, was then stated. On page 384 Aandklas is described in the
advertisement as:
"*Bio Aandklas is a
Rock Bar situated in Stellenbosch and Pretoria. We focus on Rock
tunes and South African Music. We host
live performances and rocking
people!"
On
the same page appeared 9 items advertised to take place in Aandklas
as follows (quoted verbatim):
"1. Box office &
New Holland - Tomorrow night - come check it out! 3:28 AM Aug 93rri
via web.
2. Gonna be a huge week!
Jack Parow on Wednesday, quiz on thursday and The start of the world
cup .... feel it....!!!
12:52
AM Jun 7th via web.
3.
@barnabraf
lekker...net jy wat so kan rol! 1:4(1 AM 7th via web).
4. nog net een dag ...dan
grooooot dinge ....wie sal dit wees?
1:19 AM May 28th
via web.
5. Kan net nie wag vir
Saterdag nie!!! Gaan 'n epic een wees! 12:59 AM May 2fith via web.
6. Wrestlerish se Album
launch en New Holland more by Aandklas! Gaan mal wees! R30 kry jou in
by die deur! Sien julle daar!!!
2:36 AM May 24th
via web.
7. wonder hoe moeilik
dit gaan wees vir die Stormers volgende week? 1:42 AM May 24th via
web.
8. Gonna be at Aandklas
for the rugby! Awesome specials, go SA teams! What an awesome day for
some rugby!
5:08 AM May 22nd via web.
9. Stormers v Waratahs
and Bulls v Crusaders. 4 TV's and a Big Big Screen. Come and play
Saturday at Aandklas. Great specials at
the Bar!!!
1:18 AM May
21st
via web."
e)
On page 390 appeared a copy of the "
BOO.com
"
programme's review of Aandklas and the following was stated about
Aandklas (quoted verbatim):
"Rock,
metal and alternative student bar close to the university. Bands
usually play here and they also have themed nights."
f) On page 386 of the
record a copy of an advertisement of Rhythm Records of
their
"Skop, Skiet & Donner Launch Toer" appeared wherein it
was stated
(quoted verbatim):
"Oor net minder as
'n week strike ons die pad om die nuwe album te promote.
Ons gaan deur ons twee
nuwe members Jedd Kossew op guitar en Jason Oosthuizen op dromme
gejoin word.
Kom luister na die nuwe
tracks, kom check die nuwe band en als wat ons by die shows gaan
aanvang.
Die nuwe CD en vier nuwe
shirt designs gaan te koop wees teen
R150 per shirt."
On
page 392 of the record the itinery of the show indicated that it
would take place at Aandklas on the 27th April 2010.
[27]
Attached to the answering affidavit of the first and second
respondents were the two reports obtained from dBAcoustics a firm
advising on accoustics to which the court already referred sjjpia.
The first is annexure "R05" to the answering affidavit
and
is dated the 11th June 2007. Regarding this report the deponent to
their answering affidavit stated in paragraph 17.1 that
"when
first respondent realised that there might be some merit to the
applicant's complaints in 2007 it appointed an acoustics
company
known as DB Acoustics to compile a report about noise in the vicinity
of the first respondent's business and to advise
first respondent on
remedial steps that could be taken to prevent noise from escaping
from its business."
[28]
In this report it was indicated that the noise level exceeded the
laid down norms and nine recommendations as tto the curbing
of the
excessive noise were made therein . These appeared on page 319 of the
record.
[29]
The further report, annexure "R06" to the answering
affidavit, was obtained from the same firm on the 13th August
2010,
i.e. about a month before the matter was heard by the court.
According to this report the noise level was still excessive
and they
made further recommendations to attempt to limit the noise. It
appeared that such an excessive amount of noise as was
made on the
premises of Aandklas was almost impossible to curtail and to prevent
it from escaping from the premises.
[30]
The case regarding the excessive noise and thus the actionable
nuisance against the first and second respondents was thus
conclusively proved by the University.
[31]
Regarding the zoning of the property it was already indicated by the
court that the zoning was for a place of refreshment only
and did not
allow the business of a place of amusement to be conducted there. On
this aspect the first and second respondents were
clearly operating
their business illegally.
[32]
Normally, under such circumstances, the court would be entitled to
refuse the condonation application but in this matter the
court
decided, in the interest of justice, to allow the answering
affidavits of the respondents for clarity sake and in the light
of
the information contained therein which assisted the court. The costs
of opposing the condonation application of the first and
second
respondents will be awarded to the applicant.
[33]
As it is clear that the business of Aandklas as a place of amusement
was conducted illegally and in any case in such a manner
that the
noise emanating from its premises created an actionable nuisance
(See: Laskey and Another v Showzone CC and Others
2007 (2) SA 48
(C))
the application must succeed on both grounds and costs must follow
the event. As punitive costs were neither asked for nor
argued such
an award will not be made. Costs will be ordered against the third
respondent too as it is the owner of the erf concerned
and it allowed
the actionable nuisance on its property. (See Porter v Cape Town City
Council
[1961] 4 All SA 270
(C),
1961 (4) SA 278
(C)).
[34]
As the business of Aandklas is illegally conducted as a place of
amusement no period of time to do what was necessary to abate
the
actionable nuisance can be granted and none was in any case asked for
by the respondents.
[35]
The court must address the binding of the record. The record
consisted of 401 pages and was nearly five centimetres thick yet
it
was placed in the court file as one bundle with an elementary
splitpin in the top left corner which was supposed to contain
the
many pages in one bundle. The splitpin lasted for ten minutes and
then the whole bundle became apart and the court had to remedy
the
problem itself. This will not be tolerated further and may result in
applicants being penalised regarding their fees.
[36]
The following order is made:
1. The answering
affidavits of all the respondents are admitted by the court.
2. The respondents are
interdicted from engaging in any activity in contravention of, and in
particular, from conducting any form
of business or activity,
including that of "a place of amusement", which falls
outside the Land Use Rights afforded in
terms of the Pretoria Town
Planning Scheme to the property described as Portion 2 of the
Remainder of Erf 179, Pretoria Town, on
which a business known as
"Aandklas" is presently conducted, and associated
legislation, and are interdicted from playing
any music on the said
property except background music whilst customers are enjoying
refreshments on the property, and may not
conduct any activity on the
said property that results in humans, animals and/or machines, in the
wider definition of "machines",
from causing and/or making
"disturbing noise" as is defined in the Noise Control
Regulations-Gauteng promulgated in General
Notice 5479 contained in
Provincial Gazette No. 75 of 20 August 1999 and also excessive and/or
disturbing noise, as is forbidden
therein and in associated
legislation and the common law.
3. The first and second
respondents are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the one paying
the other to be absolved, the applicant's
costs of opposing their
condonation application.
4. The first, second and
third respondents are ordered to pay, jointly and severally, the one
paying the other to be absolved, the
applicant's costs of the
application.
P.
Z. EBERSOHN
ACTING
JUBGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Applicant's
counsel: Adv. M.P. van der Merwe
Applicants'
attorneys:Tim du Toit & Co Inc.
Tel.
012x470 7559
Ref.
A. Grove/pn1232
First
and second respondents' counsel:Adv. Jaco Vorster
First
and Second Respondents' attorneys: VFV MSELEKU PROKUREURS.
Tel.
012 x 460 8704
Ref.
B. Louw/T 15044
Third
respondent's counse:Adv. L. Kellerman
Third
respondent's attorneys: Gross, Papadopulo & Associates
Tel.
012x 341 6607
Ref.
P.Papadopulo