REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2024-025513
(1) REPORTABLE: YES /
(2) OF INTEREST J a YES QD
(3) REVIEWED{EVNO
14 August 2025 . = ~ :
DATE aia IGWANR
In the matter between:
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY Applicant
And
STEYN, STEPHANUS First Respondent
STEYN, LORINDA TANIS
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
Raubenheimer AJ:
2
Order
4. The applicant is to pay the costs of the respondent on a scale as between
party and party on scale B.
Introduction
2. The respondents purchased a property in a housing development scheme
in 2007. The property is a residential property but was utilised for business
purposes. The respondents obtained permission from the Home Owners
Association (HOA) to conduct their accounting and administrative services
from the premises. The property comprised of a residential unit as well as
a carport.
The respondents operated their business from the premises from 2007 to
2022. During this period they were also appointed as the accountants for
the HOA until 2022 when there was a dispute with the HOA as a result of
which the relationship was terminated.
3. Shortly after this incident the respondents were informed that they were
not in compliance with local regulations and ordinances in respect of land
use. They approached a town planner to assist them with an application to
rezone the premises and to apply for the approval of the building plans in
respect of the carport after realising that no building plans were in
existence for the said structure.
4. During July 2022 the respondents submitted an application for a Planning
Permission Meeting with the applicant and was advised on 1 September
2022 to apply for a rezoning of the property and the application was
submitted in January 2023, advertised in February and March 2023 and
inspected in May and September 2023. The respondents were informed in
August 2023 that a hearing had to be convened as there were objections
to the rezoning application. The respondents were informed on 19
3
February 2024 that the hearing of the objections were set down for 14
March 2024 and the respondents were informed on 15 March 2024 that
the application was rejected. They were also informed on 15 April 2024
that the plans for the carport was not approved as a portion of the carport
encroached on the boundary line.
5. During the period between June 2022 and November 2022 the
respondents were informed by an official from the applicant that a
complaint had been laid about the unauthorised use of the property. This
official was informed about the rezoning application.
6. The respondents were issued with contravention notices on 28 November
2022 and a final letter of demand on 14 December 2023.
7. Despite the hearing being held on 14 March 2024 and the outcome
communicated to the respondents on 15 March 2024, the applicant had
already launched the application for interdictory relief on 20 February 2024
and served it on the respondents on 15 March 2024. The respondents
served their Notice to oppose on 25 March 2024. They did however not file
an answering affidavit.
8. The carport was removed on 15 May 2024 and alternative premises for the
conducting of the business was located. The applicant was informed on 21
May about the removal of the carport and the relocation to the new
premises which would be occupied as from 7 June 2024.
9. Despite having complied with the letter of demand and the compliance
notices the applicant enrolled the application on 20 June 2024 on the
unopposed roll for 10 July 2024.
10. When the notice of set down was served on the respondents they realised
that the applicant was intent on proceeding with the matter. As they had
not yet filed an answering affidavit the respondents had to prepare and file
the answering affidavit as well as a condonation application. This was done