IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2026-111519
DATE: 28 MAY 2026
In the matter between:
GOLDENROD GROUP (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF
JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY –
COUNCILLOR SELLO ENOCH DADA MORERO First Respondent
THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF THE CITY OF
JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY –
DR FLOYD BRINK Third Respondent
Neutral Citation: Goldenrod Group v The Executive Mayor, Johannesburg, and
Others (2026-111519) [2026] ZAGPJHC --- (28 May 2026)
Coram: Adams J
Heard: 18, 19, 20 and 22 May 2026 – ‘virtually’ on the evening of Friday,
22 May 2026, as a videoconference on Microsoft Teams.
Delivered: 28 May 2025 – This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the par ties' representatives by email , by being
uploaded to CaseLines and by release to SAFLII. The date and time
for hand-down is deemed to be 10:00 on 28 May 2026.
(1) NOT REPORTABLE
(2) NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
2
Summary: Civil procedure – urgent application for interim interdict – to interdict
demolition by Local Authority of buildings and container structures – application
opposed by Municipality on the basis that the structures are unlawful – National
Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 (‘the NBR Act’) –
structures non-compliant with s 4(1) – not approved by the City – application also
opposed on the basis of lack of urgency – defences to application accepted by
the Court –
Although application should fail – the Municipality does no altogether have clean
hands – therefore, court crafted a structural order – applicant ordered to
regularise building – failing which either party could return to court –
3
ORDER
(1) The applicant, its employees, agents, contractors and/or any other person
or persons acting through it, be and are hereby interdicted and restrained
from continuing any building, construction or installation of building
structures on its immovable property , being Erven 5120 and 5121,
Johannesburg Township, commonly known as ‘Marble Towers’ and situated
at 206 Rahima Moosa Street, Central Johannesburg (‘applicant’s property’)
and from related activities in relation to the said structures.
(2) The applicant, its employees, agents, contractors and/or any other person
or persons acting through it, be and are hereby interdicted and restrained
from occupying or permitting the occupation or use of any of the
aforementioned structures identified by the City as non -compliant with
applicable building regulations and/or fire safety requirements.
(3) The applicant shall, within 72 hours of this Order, cordon off and/or seal all
structures identified by the City as non -compliant; ensure that such
structures are not occupied or accessed by any person , and shall take all
reasonable steps to secure the property, including erecting adequate
fencing or barricading; placing clear and visible warning signage and
preventing unauthorised access.
(4) The applicant shall forthwith remove all structures encroaching upon
municipal property and/or public pavements or road reserves.
(5) The applicant shall, within twenty days of this Order submit compliant
building plans in respect of all structures; remedy all fire safety non -
compliances identified by the City, including but not limited to means of
egress; emergency exits; fire detection and protection systems; emergency
lighting; and evacuation procedures and plans.
(6) The applicant shall provide written proof of such compliance to the second
respondent, who shall be entitled to conduct inspections upon expiry of the
4
compliance period and to verify compliance with this Order and applicable
legislation.
(7) In the event of non -compliance, the respondents shall be entitled to take
such lawful enforcement steps as may be necessary.
(8) The aforesaid structures on the applicant’s property shall remain cordoned-
off and secured, and no use or occupation of non-compliant structures shall
occur pending compliance with this Order and/or the approval of building
plans and regulatory requirements.
(9) If required, t he parties shall engage in bona fide mediation within twenty
days of this Order and t he mediation shall be conducted by a mutually
agreed upon mediator, failing which by one appointed by the Chairperson
of the Johannesburg Society of Advocates.
(10) In the event of non-compliance with this Order; failure of mediation; or failure
by the applicant to obtain lawful approvals; either party may re -enrol the
matter on the same papers, duly supplemented.
(11) The applicant shall pay the respondents’ costs of this opposed Urgent
Application, including Counsel’s costs on scale ‘B’ of the tariff referred to in
Uniform Rule of Court 67A(3), read with rule 69.
JUDGMENT
Adams J:
[1]. The applicant is the owner of immovable property, being Erven 5120 and
5121, Johannesburg Township, commonly known as ‘Marble Towers’ – a multi-
storey building – and situated at 206 Rahima Moosa Street, Central
Johannesburg (“applicant’s property”). Over the last few years, the applicant has
caused to be erected and built on the ground level of its property certain
structures, which house informal businesses and traders, and, which by all
5
accounts, are non -compliant with the building regulations and by -laws of the
second respondent (‘the City’) and which have not been approved by the City.
[2]. The applicant applies on an urgent basis for interdictory and related relief
against the first respondent (‘the Mayor’), the second respondent ( the City of
Johannesburg) and the third respondent (‘the Municipal Manager’), all of whom I
shall refer to collectively as ‘the City of Johannesburg’. It may be apposite, to
place in context the issues to be decided in this matter, to cite in full the relief
sought by the applicant in its notice of motion, which indicates that the applicant
applies for the following orders: -
‘(1) Dispensing with the usual forms and service provided for by the Uniform Rules of
Court and hearing this application as a matter of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) of
the rules of this Honourable Court.
(2) The first and second respondents and/or their duly authorized departments and
representatives are interdicted and restrained from:
(2.1) Demolishing, damaging, removing or dismantling, or in any manner interfering
with any structures situated on the property owned by the applicant, commonly
known as "Marble Towers" and described as Erven 5120 and 5121,
Johannesburg Township, at 206 Rahima Mossa Street, Johannesburg CBD,
Johannesburg, Gauteng ("the Property").
(2.2) Enlisting, mandating, or utilizing any third parties, including but not limited to the
South African Police Services, the Johannesburg Metropolitan Police
Department, the South African National Defence Force, or any other law
enforcement organization, to demolish, damage, remove or dismantle any
structures on the property.
(2.3) Entering the Property for purposes of demolition, damaging, removing or
demolishing any structures on the Property.
(2.4) Preventing the applicant, its tenants, employees, contractors, invitees or lawful
occupants from accessing and utilizing the property peacefully and lawfully.
occupants from accessing and utilizing the property peacefully and lawfully.
(2.5) Threatening, intimidating or coercing the applicant, its representatives, tenants
or occupants with demolition, confiscation or removal, absent lawful authority
and/or an order of court.
6
(3) The respondents shall be entitled to enter the property solely for the purpose of
conducting lawful inspections and/or investigations, strictly in accordance with
applicable legislation and upon reasonable prior notice to the applicant.
(4) The orders listed under paragraphs 2 and 3 above shall oper ate as an interim
interdict, pending the final determination of legal proceedings:
(4.1) To be instituted by the applicant within twenty court days of the granting of this
order for the review and setting aside of any decision, alternatively, threatened
decision, taken by the first and/or second respondents and/or any official,
employee, representative or agent of the second respondent, to demolish,
remove, or interfere, with structures situations on the Property; and/or
(4.2) Instituted by the respondents for authorization to demolish, remove or interfere
with the aforesaid structures.
(5) Directing the respondents to furnish to the applicant, within five days of this order,
with:
(5.1) All notices allegedly issued relating to the Property;
(5.2) All inspection reports;
(5.3) All photographs, diagrams and surveys relied upon;
(5.4) All written decisions relating to the threatened demolition of the structures on
the property;
(5.5) All resolutions, delegations and authorisations relied upon in taking such a
decision;
(5.6) The statutory and by -law provisions relied upon for the threatened demolition
and enforcement action.
(6) Costs of suit as against the first and second respondents, jointly and severally, with
one paying the other to be absolved, on the scale as between attorney and client.
(7) Further and/or alternative relief.’
[3] The respondents oppose the application in the main on the basis that the
applicant is not entitled to the interdictory relief because the structures are illegal
in that it is non -compliant with the building regulations and the By -Laws of the
City. Moreover, so the City contends, they are entitled to remove these structures
City. Moreover, so the City contends, they are entitled to remove these structures
as they are empowered by the relevant legislation to remove illegal structures as
part and parcel of their enforcement of the By -Laws. The applicant, so the case
on behalf of the responde nts goes, has not satisfied a single requirement for
interim interdictory relief. There is no prima facie right – the right asserted is itself
7
unlawful. There is no irreparable harm – the structures are modular and their
value quantifiable. The balance of convenience favours the respondents and the
public. Alternative remedies exist and have been deliberately ignored.
[4] Therefore, the central question before this Court is simply whether the
applicant has made out a case for the interdictory relief sought by it in this urgent
application. That issue is to be decided against the factual backdrop of the matter.
[5] The case on behalf of the City is that t he applicant has been aware of
enforcement proceedings since 12 April 2022 – over four years ago. It (the
applicant) has conveniently omitted to disclose to the Court this four-year
enforcement history. For this reason alone, so the contention on behalf of the City
continues, the application should fail.
[6] I find myself in agreement with this contention by the City. If regard is had
to the version of the City, supported by contemporaneous documentary evidence,
it is so that the applicant has clearly misrepresented or attempted to misrepresent
to the Court that no notice of contravention was served . This breaches the duty
of uberrima fides owed by an applicant in an application, especially one brought
on an urgent basis.
[7] The simple point, as irrefutably confirmed by the City’s Land Information
System (‘LIS’), is that that no building plan applications have ever been submitted
for either Erf 5120 or Erf 5121. The applicant’s claim of compliance has, in my
view, been demonstrated to be false. On 6 May 2025 the City directed the
applicant to submit building plans in respect of the container structures erected
on its property – it failed to comply.
[8] This means that the applicant does not have a prima facie right on which
to ground an application for interim interdictory relief. It has no right to maintain
structures erected in contravention of section 4(1) of the National Building
Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 (‘the NBR Act’) without the
Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 (‘the NBR Act’) without the
written approval of the local authority. Section 4(1) reads as follows: -
8
‘4 Approval by local authorities of applications in respect of erection of
buildings
(1) No person shall without the prior approval in writing of the local authority in
question, erect any building in respect of which plans and specifications are to
be drawn and submitted in terms of this Act.’
[9] The section is in peremptory terms (‘no person shall’) and it clearly and
unequivocally places a prohibition on the erection of any building or structure
without prior approval of the local authority after building plans are submitted to
and approved by the City. There can accordingly be little doubt that the structures
in question are illegal and that the City is entitled to enfor ce compliance with the
law. Moreover, s 4(4) renders the contravention of s 4(1) a criminal offence.
[10] In that regard, the enforcement proceedings against the illegal structures
on the applicant’s property were initiated by the City’s Building Inspectorate on
12 April 2022 – more than four years before this application was brought, and
more than four years before the first respondent’s public statements on 13 May
2026 that the City would be embarking on another ‘clean-up’, which would have
included the demolition of the said unlawful structures. The so-called ‘Mayoral
High-Impact Service Delivery operation ’ of 13 May 2026 was , according to the
respondents, a routine, multi -departmental operational framework involving
multiple departments addressing multiple properties in the inner c ity – not a
targeted campaign against the applicant.
[11] On 12 April 2022 , the f irst contravention notice was issued by the City,
directing removal of all illegal structures and containers and on 15 June 2022 the
Building Inspectorate recommended rates penalties to the City’s Revenue
Department. On 21 June 2022 , a l aw enforcement complaint was registered in
City’s LIS . This is an automated, timestamped system entry that cannot be
fabricated or backdated. On 27 September 2023 , a f ollow-up inspection found
fabricated or backdated. On 27 September 2023 , a f ollow-up inspection found
continued non-compliance. It therefore bears emphasising that the applicant had
been given seventeen months to comply and had failed to do so.
9
[12] To add the proverbial insult to the injury, on 6 May 2025 – a full year before
this application is launched – a further contravention notice was issued by the
City specifically instructing the applicant to submit building plans within 21 days,
which notice the applicant also disregarded. Thereafter, on 13 May 2026 , a
further inspections found continued non -compliance and, by then, n o building
plans had ever been submitted. And on 14 May 2026, a final contravention notice
was served on Mr Grandy Malapane, identified as the Building Manager on site.
[13] I therefore agree with the City that for these reasons alone the application
should fail – be it for lack of urgency or for a failure on the part of the applicant to
demonstrate that it has a prima facie right on which to ground interim interdictory
relief. The simple fact of the matter is that t he applicant has had four years to
submit building plans for approval and to regularise the container structures , It
failed to do so. It therefore cannot be heard complaining that the matter is urgent.
If there is any urgency, there can, in my view, be no doubt that such urgency is
self-created.
[14] There are further reasons why the applicant cannot and should not
succeed with its application for the relief sought. In particular, i t is a well-
established principle of our law that a court will not grant interdictory relief to
protect an unlawful state of affairs, particularly where public safety is implicated.
See Lester v Ndlambe Municipality and Another1, in which the SCA held that the
law could not and did not countenance an ongoing illegality which was also a
criminal offence; to do so would be to subvert the doctrine of legality and to
undermine the rule of law.
[15] Ms Qofa-Lebakeng, Counsel for the City, submitted that t he aforegoing
facts are dispositive of the interdict requirements: no prima facie right; no
cognisable irreparable harm to be protected as against the real risk to life; and a
cognisable irreparable harm to be protected as against the real risk to life; and a
balance of convenience that overwhelmingly favours the respondents and the
public. I agree. The respondents bear a constitutional obligation to ensure that
1 Lester v Ndlambe Municipality and Another 2015 (6) SA 283 (SCA) at para 20.
10
buildings are safe for occupation. And this is precisely why the NBR Act was
enacted.
[16] Accordingly, the urgent application should fail.
[17] The flipside of the coin is, however, that the City does not have the power
to, without more, demolition buildings or building structures. Its reliance in that
regard on the provisions of s 12(1) of the NBR Act is misplaced. The applica ble
section is s 21, which provides that: -
‘… a magistrate shall have jurisdiction, on the application of any local authority or the
Minister, to make an order … authorising such local authority to demolish such building
if such magistrate is satisfied that such erection is contrary to or does not comply with
the provisions of this Act or any approval or authorisation granted thereunder.’
[18] This, in my view, means that, in the interest of justice, it is necessary for
this Court to regulate the further conduct of the matter, lest any of the parties
interpret a refusal by the Court to grant the applicant’s urgent application as
confirmation tha t the building structures on the applicant’s property can and
should be demolished without more.
[19] I therefore intend crafting an order in the nature of a structural order, which,
I believe, would assist in the orderly and lawful resolution of the disputes between
the parties. In that regard, the respondents, at some stage during the
proceedings, proposed on a ‘with prejudice’ basis an order, which finds favour
with the Court. I intend granting and order as proposed by the respondents, with
a number of modifications.
[20] As for the relief sought by the applicant in para 5 of its notice of motion, it
appears to me that the order sought by the applicant has in the main been
addressed by the respondents’ answering affidavit. In any event, for the reasons
alluded to supra, that is not the type of relief which the applicant can apply for on
an urgent basis.
11
Costs
[21] The general rule is that costs should follow the suit. I can think of no reason
why I should deviate from that rule. The respondents have successfully opposed
an urgent application and costs should therefore be awarded in their favour.
Order
[22] In the result, I grant the following order: -
(1) The applicant, its employees, agents, contractors and/or any other person
or persons acting through it, be and are hereby interdicted and restrained
from continuing any building, construction or installation of building
structures on its immovable property, being Erven 5120 and 5121,
Johannesburg Township, commonly known as ‘Marble Towers’ and situated
at 206 Rahima Moosa Street, Central Johannesburg (‘applicant’s property’)
and from related activities in relation to the said structures.
(2) The applicant, its employees, agents, contractors and/or any other person
or persons acting through it, be and are hereby interdicted and restrained
from occupying or permitting the occupation or use of any of the
aforementioned structures identified by the City as non -compliant with
applicable building regulations and/or fire safety requirements.
(3) The applicant shall, within 72 hours of this Order, cordon off and/or seal all
structures identified by the City as non -compliant; ensure that such
structures are not occupied or accessed by any person , and shall take all
reasonable steps to secure the property, including erecting adequate
fencing or barricading; placing clear and visible warning signage and
preventing unauthorised access.
(4) The applicant shall forthwith remove all structures encroaching upon
municipal property and/or public pavements or road reserves.
(5) The applicant shall, within twenty days of this Order submit compliant
building plans in respect of all structures; remedy all fire safety non -
compliances identified by the City, including but not limited to means of
13
HEARD ON:
18, 19, 20 and 22 May 2026 –
‘virtually’ as a videoconference on
Microsoft Teams
JUDGMENT DATE: 28 May 2026
FOR THE APPLICANT: M R Maphutha
INSTRUCTED BY: Madhi Attorneys Incorporated,
Parkwood, Johannesburg
FOR THE FIRST, SECOND and
THIRD RESPONDENTS: (Ms) M Qofa-Lebakeng
INSTRUCTED BY: Ncube Incorporated Attorneys,
Illovo, Sandton