About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAKZPHC 35
|

|

F Kamy Investments CC and Another v Umdoni Municipality (1891/2021P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 35 (10 August 2022)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
Case No: 1891/2021P
In the matter between:
F KAMY INVESTMENTS
CC

FIRST APPLICANT
SUMMERTREE TRADING AND
INVESTMENTS CC
SECOND APPLICANT
and
UMDONI
MUNICIPALITY

RESPONDENT
ORDER
The
following order is granted:
1.
The respondent is directed to do all things
necessary, including but not limited to, the appointment of an
appropriate contractor
and/or engineer, to replace and/or repair the
failed storm water pipes in Aster Road, Umzinto, situated immediately
above the first
applicant’s property;
2.
The respondent is directed to ensure that
paragraph 1 of this order is complied with within four months of the
service of this order
upon it.
3.
The respondent is
directed to ensure that upon completion of the work to be performed
in compliance with the order in paragraph
1, the storm water system
is fit for purpose and that in the ordinary course of events, storm
water shall not escape therefrom.
4.
The respondent is
directed to ensure that upon completion of the work to be performed
in compliance with the order in paragraph
1, Aster Road shall not in
the ordinary course of events, discharge water onto the gabion wall
belonging to the first applicant.
5.
The
respondent is directed to pay the applicants’ costs on an
attorney and client scale.
JUDGMENT
MOSSOP J:
[1]
The first
applicant owns certain immovable property situated at 357 Aster Road,
Umzinto (the property). Constructed on the property
are certain
commercial premises that the first applicant lets to the second
applicant, from which the business of a cash and carry
is run by the
second applicant. At the rear of the property is a substantial
embankment. At the top of the embankment is, inter
alia, a tarred
road, being Aster Road, and a storm water drainage system, both
constructed at the behest of the respondent.
[2]
Initially,
the embankment was supported and retained by a loffelstein wall.
[1]
That wall failed in 2010 and was replaced by a wall constructed from
gabions.
[2]
GAP Consulting
Geotechnical Engineering (GAP) designed the replacement gabion wall
(the gabion wall) for the first applicant. The
civil engineer tasked
with this project was Mr Gianmarco Pauselli (Mr Pauselli).
[3]
The applicants
allege that the storm water drainage system has not been maintained
by the respondent, and is now more noteworthy
for the quantity of
water that escapes from the pipes that form part of it, which are
either holed, obstructed, broken or displaced,
than for the quantity
of storm water that the pipes retain and direct away from the
embankment. This, coupled with the excessive
flow of water off Aster
Road, over the top of the gabion wall, so the applicants contend, has
caused the sand fill utilised in
the construction of the gabion wall
to be scoured away, eroding its support. The gabion wall has
consequently shown signs of collapse
on three separate occasions
since its construction. The last of these near collapses prompted the
bringing of this application.
[4]
When the
matter was called, I had the pleasure of hearing argument from Mr
Hoar, who appeared for the applicants and from Ms Olsen,
who appeared
for the respondent. Both are thanked for their most helpful
submissions.
[5]
In their notice of motion, the applicants
seek the following relief:
‘
1.
The Respondent is directed to do all things necessary, including but
not limited to,
the appointment of an appropriate contractor and/or
engineer, to replace and/or repair the failed storm water
pipes/infrastructure
in Aster Road, Umzinto, situated immediately
above the First Applicant’s property, and as more particularly
identified in
the written report of Camjet (Pty) Ltd dated 18
November 2020 furnished to the Municipality under cover of Cox Yeats
attorneys
letter dated 23 November 2020.
2.
The Respondent is directed to ensure that paragraph 1 of this order
is complied
with within three months of the service of this order
upon it.
3.
The Respondent is directed to ensure that, upon completion of the
works executed
in
compliance with paragraph
1 of this order, no storm water can escape from the storm water
infrastructure constructed in Aster Road
immediately above the First
Applicant’s property.
4.
The Respondent is directed to ensure that, upon completion of the
works executed
in compliance with paragraph 1 of this order, no storm
water can flow from the surface of Aster Road over the curb
immediately
above the first applicant’s property and into the
first applicant’s property.
5.
The Respondent is directed to pay the Applicants costs on an attorney
and client
scale.’
[6]
On each of the
first two occasions when the gabion wall was compromised, it was
repaired at the instance of the first applicant.
The damage was
documented on each occasion in the form of photographs, which are
attached to the founding affidavit. The damage
that was caused on the
third occasion has also been photographed and those photographs are
also attached to the founding affidavit.
The gabion wall has yet to
be repaired following the damage sustained on the third occasion.
[7]
Upon the
occurrence of the third instance upon which the integrity of the
gabion wall was compromised, a meeting was held at the
property on 31
August 2018 between, inter alia, the applicants’ erstwhile
attorney, Mr Bilal Malani (Mr Malani), and representatives
of the
respondent. In a letter dated 11 October 2018, Mr Malani recorded
that at the meeting there had been consensus between those
present
that a hazardous position had developed and that the gabion wall was
in danger of imminent collapse. There was also consensus
that the
respondent should adopt urgent remedial measures which included the
repair of the storm water drainage system located
along Aster Road.
The respondent undertook to commence with urgent remedial measures to
repair the storm water drains. Notwithstanding
such consensus, the
respondent did not act. At no stage has the respondent disputed the
accuracy of what Mr Malani stated in his
letter.
[8]
There being no
signs of activity on the part of the respondent, on 20 February 2019,
GAP, at the request of the first applicant,
directed a letter to the
respondent setting out the history of the matter, and indicating that
the gabion wall could not be repaired
until the respondent itself
repaired the storm water system.  The author of the letter was
Mr Pauselli. The letter broke down
the history of the matter into the
three occasions when the integrity of the gabion wall was threatened,
and explained what happened,
and why it happened, on each occasion:
(a)
on the first
occasion, during January 2011, the cause was attributed to
uncontrolled storm water flowing off Aster Road. The road
itself
developed surface cracks, which were sealed off;
(b)
on the second
occasion, during November and December 2012, substantial cracks
developed in Aster Road. The storm water system was
found to be
dysfunctional and the broken pipes allowed large volumes of to flow
into and infiltrate the soil directly behind the
gabion wall. Large
scour cavities appeared below the road surface from soil being lost,
resulting in the subsidence of Aster Road
as a consequence. As a
consequence of such subsidence, additional storm water runoff was
attracted to that area.
(c)
insofar as the
third incident during May and June 2018 was concerned, Mr Pauselli
indicated that one section of Aster Road had subsided
further. The
storm water catch pits and the manholes along Aster Road had suffered
further deterioration since the second incident
and had become
ineffective because of the negative camber of Aster Road.  As a
consequence, water bypassed the manhole inlets
and flowed over the
gabion wall causing damage to the second respondent’s premises
and stock. Mr Pauselli recommended, inter
alia, that a camera survey
of the storm water system be undertaken by the respondent in order to
assess the damage to that system
and to assist with the effecting of
the necessary repairs. Mr Pauselli’s letter, however, did not
move the respondent to
act, who did not even acknowledge receipt of
it.
[9]
On 6 November
2020 the applicants’ current attorney, Mr Vlcek (Mr Vlcek),
wrote to the respondent and indicated, inter alia,
that there was a
real risk of the gabion wall collapsing, with potentially dire
consequences, because of the failure of the storm
water system. He
demanded that the respondent immediately instruct consulting
engineers to consider the problem and agree upon
remedial steps
required to safeguard the safety of members of the community and the
first applicant’s property. No response
was received from the
respondent to this letter either.
[10]
Five days
after Mr Vlcek’s letter, two municipal officials went to the
premises and inspected the gabion wall and the storm
water system.
The same day, 12 November 2020, the respondent’s manager of
‘Legal and Estates’, Ms Sayarika Reddy,
wrote to Mr Vlcek
and requested the indulgence of one week for the respondent to
finalise its investigations into the applicants’
complaint.
Having been granted the indulgence by Mr Vlcek, the respondent did
not revert to him after the requested period
of a week.
[11]
Rather than
wait for the respondent to undertake a camera survey of the storm
water infrastructure that Mr Pauselli had proposed
should occur, the
applicant assumed that responsibility itself, together with the
concomitant expense, and mandated an entity known
as Camjet (Pty) Ltd
(Camjet), to inspect and photograph the storm water system and
prepare a report (the Camjet report).
[12]
Before
continuing with the narration of the history of the matter, it is
perhaps appropriate at this juncture to consider the Camjet
report.
It is a document of substance: it is some 63 pages long and is
replete with dozens of colour photographs taken by a robot
operated
camera placed within the storm water pipes. The format adopted in
compiling the report is to divide the storm water system
into parts,
identify the part on a sectional diagram, note the position of a
point that requires comment on that diagram, and demonstrate
the
point with a photograph. The photographs depict, inter alia,
infiltration points, open joints and points at which tree roots
have
intruded into the storm water pipe as well as points where seepage is
occurring. It is a technical document that would no
doubt assist in
the carrying out of repairs to the storm water system as it
identifies areas where the pipes have failed or are
leaking.
[13]
The person who
compiled the Camjet report, Mr Shalome Dukhea (Mr Dukhea), confirmed
his report and the existence of the defects
in the storm water pipes
in a confirmatory affidavit. Mr Pauselli also delivered a
confirmatory affidavit in which he confirmed
his involvement in the
matter and his findings. These two confirmatory affidavits excited
some controversy and their alleged absence
from the application
papers brought about an application to strike out certain references
from the founding affidavit by the respondent.
The application to
strike out was subsequently abandoned when the matter was argued and
nothing more need be said about it.
[14]
Reverting to
the history of the matter, on 23 November 2020, Mr Vlcek wrote to Ms
Reddy and requested a formal response to his letter
of 6 November
2020. He also enclosed a copy of the Camjet report. No response was
received to Mr Vlcek’s letter.
[15]
Undeterred, Mr
Vlcek wrote another letter to the respondent on 1 December 2020, in
which he indicated that the high court would
now be approached. This
finally elicited a response from the respondent’s legal
administration officer, Ms Karen Pratt (Ms
Pratt). She indicated that
the matter had been submitted to the respondent’s senior
management for urgent attention and response.
Two days later, on 3
December 2020, Ms Pratt wrote to Mr Vlcek and stated that the
respondent’s general manager for technical
services had
confirmed that a contractor would be on site to attend to the issue
on 8 December 2020. Mr Vlcek wisely wrote again
to Ms Pratt and
requested that whoever would be on site at the instance of the
respondent be furnished with a copy of the Camjet
report.
[16]
As may perhaps
be expected, no contactor presented himself on site on 8 December
2020. Mr Vlcek discovered that the contractor appointed
was an entity
called GanTrans (GanTrans). He contacted GanTrans and ascertained
that it lacked the capacity to assist and had therefore
declined to
come on site. On 10 December 2020, Mr Vlcek informed Ms Pratt of this
development and on that day, another contractor
arrived on site. This
was Mr Bhengu (Mr Bhengu).
[17]
Mr Bhengu had apparently been
advised by the respondent that all that he had to do was to replace a
storm water pipe in Aster Road.
He was not provided with a copy of
the Camjet report. The ever industrious Mr Vlcek spoke with him and
advised him of the scope
of the works that needed to be performed
under the supervision of an engineer. Mr Bhengu said that he had no
knowledge of any of
this. However, on 11 December 2020, Mr Bhengu
telephoned Mr Vlcek and said that having discussed the matter with
the respondent’s
general manager, he had concluded that he
would only be able to commence the work at the beginning of 2021.
Appreciating that the
builder’s annual holiday break was fast
approaching, the first applicant resigned itself to the fact that
nothing could be
done at that time of the year.
[18]
The new year arrived and the
builder’s holidays came to an end. But by 22 January 2021, the
remedial work had not been commenced.
Mr Vlcek contacted Mr Bhengu,
who stated that he had not yet been properly appointed by the
respondent. As a consequence, Mr Vlcek
wrote to the respondent on 1
February 2021, expressing his dissatisfaction with the fact that the
remedial work had been dragging
on for an extended period of time and
that, in the circumstances, the applicants had no choice but to
approach this court for relief.
This application was then launched.
Needless to say, neither Mr Bhengu nor any other contractor came on
site thereafter.
[19]
However, after this application was
launched, the respondent’s attorney, Mr Kay Naidoo (Mr Naidoo)
wrote to Mr Vlcek on 14
May 2021, and informed him, without any
admission of liability, that the respondent intended to perform
repairs and maintenance
work to the municipal piping system in Aster
Road, but that to do so, it required approval from the respondent’s
council
for the funding of such works. A council meeting was due to
take place at the end of May 2021, and funding for the repairs would

be sought at that meeting.
[20]
What happened at the end of May 2021
is not clear. However, three months later, on 6 September 2021, the
respondent’s attorney
wrote to Mr Vlcek and stated that the
issue of the repairs had been raised at the respondent’s
council meeting on 31 August
2021 (no explanation as to what happened
at the council meeting at the end of May 2021 was provided) but that:
‘
Regrettably,
the municipality budget cannot accommodate the repair in this
financial year.’
In
the circumstances, Mr Vlcek was advised that the respondent would now
deliver an answering affidavit and its attorneys sought
time to do
so. The deponent to the answering affidavit that was subsequently
delivered is the respondent’s general manager
of technical
services, Mr Simphiwe Nkwanyana (Mr Nkwanyana).
[21]
In the answering affidavit, Mr
Nkwanyana deals with the merits of the applicants’ case and
provides counter allegations as
to why the applicants’ version
cannot be sustained. In respect of the majority of those counter
allegations, the respondent
relies upon the observations, experience
and recommendations of its expert. The principal defences raised by
Mr Nkwanyana were
the following:
(a)
he denied that water was leaking through
the storm water pipes, seeping into the ground and then impacting
upon the gabion wall.
The expert appointed by the respondent did not
observe any cracks in the road surface adjacent to the wall caused by
subsidence,
which, it is submitted by Mr Nkwanyana, should be evident
if this was the case. Some of the photographs attached to the
founding
affidavit reveal such cracks;
(b)
he made the submission that if water was
seeping under the road and permeating the gabion wall, then it would
be expected that there
would be a water flow out of the wall, or at
least at its base, during a period of rainfall. However, the
respondent’s expert
inspected the wall during a rainfall
episode on 6 April 2021 and did not make such an observation. No
particulars of the duration
of the observation or where it was made
from were provided;
(c)
he repeated the expert’s opinion that
leakage from the storm water pipes was unlikely, given that the
Camjet report stated
that the depth of the water in the storm water
pipes was at 10% of the volume of the pipes. Mr Nkwanyana states that
the pipes
were therefore not full nor were they pressurised. The
expert held the view that leaking would be prevalent where water
pressure
forced water out through cracks in the pipe but, in the
absence of such pressure, water will follow the path of least
resistance.
The expert was also of the view that the Camjet report
does not indicate the volume of water seeping through the joints nor
does
it show any damages to the retaining wall as a result of such
seepages. This latter fact is hardly surprising because the Camjet

report was confined to the interior of the storm water system and did
not focus on the gabion wall;
(d)
he indicated that the expert was of the
further view that the top of the gabion wall was not covered with
vegetation, and that logic
therefore dictated that water would enter
the structure of the gabion wall from the top when it rains. The
photographs show vegetation
on the top of the gabion wall; and
(e)
he repeated the expert’s proposition
that the gabion wall is designed to retain soil whilst allowing only
water to seep through
the stones. Water seepage should therefore not
present a threat to the structural integrity of the wall.
[22]
It will be discerned from the
aforegoing that virtually the entirety of the respondent’s
rebuttal of the applicants’
case is predicated upon the views
and opinions of its expert witness. The difficulty for the respondent
is that it has never identified
who that expert is. There is no
affidavit delivered on behalf of the respondent by any person who
identifies himself as the expert
to whom reference is made by Mr
Nkwanyana in his answering affidavit. In fact, the only person who
has deposed to an affidavit
on behalf of the respondent is Mr
Nkwanyana himself. Mr Nkwanyana has never identified himself as being
an expert capable of providing
opinions on the issues in this matter.
[23]
What
Mr Nkwanyana states, while being interesting, is accordingly legally
irrelevant.
[3]
The observations,
findings, and propositions of the respondent’s expert witness
is hearsay in the mouth of Mr Nkwanyana.
I am at a loss to understand
why the respondent would make reference to the observations and
findings of its expert, yet never
name him nor produce an affidavit
from him. No application was made in terms of
section 3(1)
of the
Law
of Evidence Amendment Act 45 of 1988
to have any of the hearsay
evidence admitted. The consequence thereof is that there is nothing
to rebut the principal allegations
made by the applicants’
experts regarding the reason why the integrity of the gabion wall has
been repeatedly compromised.
[24]
The respondent consequently finds
itself in a difficult position.
In an apparent
attempt
to extricate itself from this difficulty, the respondent contends
that there are disputes of fact which render it impossible
for this
court to determine this application without the leading of oral
evidence.
[25]
Our
courts are required to robustly approach disputes of fact. In
Soffiantini
v Mould
,
[4]
the court outlined this approach and stated as follows:
‘
In
the case of
Room
Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd
,
[5]
Murray, then AJP, said:
“
A
bare denial of applicant's material averments cannot be regarded as
sufficient to defeat applicant's right to secure relief by
motion
proceedings in appropriate cases. Enough must be stated by respondent
to enable the Court to conduct a preliminary examination
. . . and to
ascertain whether the denials are not fictitious intended merely to
delay the hearing.”’
[6]
[26]
For a dispute to exist, there must
be a competing factual version based upon admissible evidence. In the
absence of any admissible
evidence gainsaying the version of the
applicant’s witnesses, there is no dispute of fact in the
matter
.
I
must therefore conclude that there are no material disputes of fact
that require this matter to be referred to the hearing of
oral
evidence, and I decline any invitation by the respondent to make such
an order.
[27]
Besides the inadmissible evidence
used to rebut the technical aspects of the applicants’ case,
there were three further arguments
advanced on behalf of the
respondent:
(a)
the first was that there was no evidence
that the gabion wall had been constructed according to the approved
plans. The respondent,
apparently, has no record of a certificate of
completion in its files. That falls short of a positive averment that
there is no
certificate of completion. The applicants, in reply, say
that there is one but have not put it up. This is because, according
to
Mr Hoar, it is irrelevant: the respondent cannot permit harm to
occur to the first applicant’s property, whether what is upon

it is constructed lawfully or unlawfully. Given the conduct of the
respondent as already described, I am not surprised that there
is no
record in the respondent’s files of this certificate. But that
does not mean that it does not exist. In my view, Mr
Hoar is correct
that the certificate is of no real consequence;
(b)
the second point was that any harm suffered
from the run off of water from Aster Road was as a consequence of the
camber of the
road, and that this camber had always been in existence
but had not been taken into account by the applicants’ expert
when
designing and constructing the gabion wall. That argument had an
initial allure to it, which soon faded when Mr Hoar pointed out
that
the photographs reveal that the camber of Aster Road has changed as a
consequence of the failure of its surface. Photographs
reveal that
the road surface was initially cambered away from the gabion wall,
but as a consequence of the damage occasioned to
Aster Road, water is
now capable of flowing off Aster Road towards the gabion wall; and
(c)
the final point related to the
photographs relied upon by the applicants. Ms Olsen said that
witnesses needed to speak to those
photographs and needed to describe
what was depicted therein. Mr Hoar pointed out that the deponent to
the founding affidavit did
precisely that in the founding affidavit,
describing what could be seen in each of the photographs that were
attached to the founding
affidavit.
[28]
None of these
points materially assisted the respondent’s defence.
[29]
The respondent’s conduct has
been consistent with an acknowledgment by it of the existence of a
problem with the storm water
system in Aster Road and that road
surface. Once alerted to the problem, the respondent did not deny the
very existence of that
problem in either word or deed. That was the
position until the very moment that the respondent’s council
indicated that
there were insufficient funds to pay for the remedial
work required. It is only at that juncture that a defence was
conjured up.
The respondent’s acknowledgment of the existence
of the problem was initially manifested through the instructing of
the first
contractor, GanTrans, and, thereafter, Mr Bhengu to go on
site and attend to the problem. The strength of the applicants’

version, and the corresponding weakness in the respondent’s
position, was reinforced by the fact that the respondent
acknowledged,
in writing, that it intended to carry out repairs to
the storm water system in Aster Road, and that it was prepared to
formally
make application to the respondent’s council for funds
to allow this to occur. I do not lose sight of the fact that the
respondent
made no admission of liability in doing so. But it is
equally so that the respondent would not seek funds to repair a storm
water
system that it regarded as being complete, fit for purpose, and
functional. To do so would be nonsensical.
[30]
Counsel for the respondent submitted
that the respondent had never stated that the storm water system did
not require repairs. Its
position was that the storm water system was
not the cause of the failure of the gabion wall. A civil engineer, Mr
Pauselli, has
provided an explanation for the weakening of the gabion
wall. It is not fanciful and is supported by evidence of the decrepit
storm
water system above the gabion wall and the poor state of Aster
Road.
Mr Dukhea
has confirmed the existence of the defects in the storm water system
and has provided tangible evidence thereof. There is nothing
from the
respondent that lessens the impact of the evidence of these two
witnesses.
[31]
I am
accordingly satisfied that the applicants have on a balance of
probabilities established that the damage to the gabion wall
has been
occasioned by the water escaping from the pipes of the storm water
system, and from water being discharged from the surface
of Aster
Road onto the gabion wall.
[32]
Something
needs to be said about the conduct of the respondent.
It has been tardy and impolite in the extreme,
choosing not to reply to correspondence legitimately sent to it by
the applicants’
attorneys. It has, through its conduct,
unnecessarily dragged this matter out for years. It has said that it
will act and then
did not act. It has ignored what it acknowledged
was a potentially dangerous situation and has put the life and limb
of its constituents
at risk. This is not the service our country
requires from a municipality. Such conduct is unworthy of an
institution intended
to serve the people. It warrants a punitive
costs order.
[33]
The respondent has raised certain
criticisms concerning the manner in which the orders sought in the
notice of motion have been
framed:
(a)
paragraph
1 is criticised for the fact that it references the Camjet report.
The argument advanced in this regard is that the respondent,
if it is
to be ordered to repair the storm water system, must be free to
repair it as it deems necessary. While the Camjet report
may be a
useful tool, it should not be elevated to being the standard required
for the remediation of the storm water system nor
should the
respondent be in contempt of any order granted if it does not make
use of the Camjet report. I am not certain that this
is what was
intended by paragraph 1, but perhaps it may be sensible to amend the
relief to avoid reference to the Camjet report
and to give the
respondent a free hand in how it intends approaching the repairs; and
(b)
paragraphs
3 and 4 are criticised as being
impermissible
and bad in law. The criticism was based on the fact that the
respondent could never ensure that no water ever escaped
from the
storm water system or that no water ever flowed off Aster Road. Mr
Hoar conceded that perhaps the demand that no water
should escape
from the system was relief that his client could live without.
Perhaps he was over generous in that regard and I
do not intend
holding him to that concession. But he was less obliging regarding
the run off of water from Aster Road, dealt with
in paragraph 4 of
the notice of motion. He maintained that controlling the run off from
the surface of Aster Road was fundamental
to the preservation of the
first applicant’s property. I think that he is correct in that
regard. I intend amending the relief
to avoid the respondent easily
being accused of being in contempt of court.
[34]
In the circumstances, I grant the
following order:
1.
The respondent is directed to do all things
necessary, including but not limited to, the appointment of an
appropriate contractor
and/or engineer, to replace and/or repair the
failed storm water pipes in Aster Road, Umzinto, situated immediately
above the first
applicant’s property at 357 Aster Road;
2.
The respondent is directed to ensure that
paragraph 1 of this order is complied with within four months of the
service of this order
upon it.
3.
The respondent is
directed to ensure that upon completion of the work to be performed
in compliance with the order in paragraph
1, the storm water system
is fit for purpose and that in the ordinary course of events, storm
water shall not escape therefrom.
4.
The respondent is
directed to ensure that upon completion of the work to be performed
in compliance with the order in paragraph
1, Aster Road shall not in
the ordinary course of events, discharge water onto the gabion wall
belonging to the first applicant.
5.
The
respondent is directed to pay the applicants’ costs on an
attorney and client scale.
MOSSOP
J
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the applicant
Mr

S. Hoar
Instructed
by:

Stowell and Co
295
Pietermaritz Street
Pietermaritzburg
Counsel for the
respondent                     Ms

L. K. Olsen
Instructed
by

Livingstone Leandy
Care
of Austin Smith Attorneys
Redlands
Estate
Pietermaritzburg
Date of Hearing        :2
August 2022
Date of Judgment
:10 August 2022
[1]
A
loffelstein wall is a dry stacking, interlocking retaining system.
[2]
A
gabion is a steel wire basket that is filled with rocks and other
construction materials. The word ‘gabion’ itself
means
‘cage’ in Latin or Italian.
[3]
Zungu
NO v Minister of Safety and Security
2003 (4) SA 87
(D) at 90D;
Rautini
v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa
[2021] ZASCA 158
para 11.
[4]
Soffiantini
v Mould
1956
(4) SA 150
(E).
[5]
Room
Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd
1949
(3) SA 1155
(T) at 1165.
[6]
Soffiantini
v Mould
1956
(4) SA 150
(E) at 154E–H.