Cape Town couple takes neighbours to court over parking lot dispute
A married couple took seven other respondents to court to stop them from parking on their driveway.
Image: Freepik
A Cape Town parking war that spiralled into a full-blown neighbour feud has ended with the High Court ordering several Higgovale residents to stop blocking their neighbours’ driveway.
The judge effectively told everyone to start behaving like decent human beings, although he did stop five respondents from obscuring the driveway.
A married couple took seven other respondents to court to stop them from parking on their driveway. Then, they discovered that some people had sold, so withdrew their claims.
The court date was postponed a few times, one delay because there needed to be a driveway inspection.
Another postponement was because the body corporate of a complex, the Kloof Heights Body Corporate, wasn’t cited in the papers.
Eventually, acting judge Cooke told the parties that litigation was “a blunt instrument for resolving a dispute of this nature”.
The judge and urged them to resolve their issues face-to-face rather than through endless legal blows.
“All I can do is urge the parties to engage with each other in a manner that promotes the spirit of ubuntu, and the constitutional vision of a caring society based on good neighbourliness and shared concern,” the ruling read.
The matter — essentially a bitter clash over parking on a shared servitude — pitted the Venters against nearly all the residents of the neighbouring property. Years of simmering hostility erupted into affidavits, accusations of obstruction, allegations of abuse of servitude rights, and even CCTV stills showing residents continuing to block access between the first hearing and the second.
The feud grew so toxic that Cooke AJ noted neither side showed “concern for the interests of their fellow neighbours”.
In the ruling, the judge observed that the Venters aimed to deprive the residents of parking altogether through the court action, while the residents tried to negate or limit the Venters’ right of way.
The court ultimately interdicted five of the respondents from parking on the servitude in any manner that “unreasonably obstructs” the Venters’ access to their property.
However, the court refused a ban on parking outright.
The court also criticised both sides for refusing to engage meaningfully before running to it.
The judge pointed out that there was a practical solution: demarcated parking bays, painted lines, and mutually agreed arrangements.
These had actually been proposed as far back as 2004 but never implemented.
"While the common law requires that neighbours act reasonably, the Constitution shows what a reasonable neighbour looks like. She is not only concerned with advancing her own private interests but cares also for the needs of her neighbours," write the judge.
The judge added that "she seeks mutually beneficial solutions. The mindset of the reasonable neighbour is one of collaboration, not competition. She sees herself not as an isolated individual, but a partner in an interdependent community of persons, all of whom are to be respected and valued."
IOL Business