Mogadi Sesoene turned to the Limpopo High Court, sitting in Polokwane, as she is not willing to tolerate the portion of Nape Masogo and his wife’s garage infringing on her property.
A garage built 42cm into the boundary of a neighbour’s property is the subject of a legal spat between the two neighbours, with the aggrieved neighbour asking the court for an order that the offending garage be demolished.
Mogadi Sesoene turned to the Limpopo High Court, sitting in Polokwane, as she is not willing to tolerate the portion of Nape Masogo and his wife’s garage infringing on her property.
The fight has been going on for more than a decade.
The Masogos had been in occupation of their home when the applicant (Sesoene) bought her property and moved in.
Sesoene told the court that during 2012, the Masogos had erected an immovable structure that was used as a garage. She had obtained the services of a land surveyor to determine if the structure was encroaching on her property.
She had also reported the situation to the Polokwane Municipality after she was unable to resolve the issue with her neighbours.
The municipality had served the respondents with a final notice in which they had been informed that the structure and its foundation exceeded the boundary line, in contravention of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act. The notice had required the respondents to demolish the portion of the structure that exceeded the boundary and remove the building material.
The notice was ignored by the respondents and the municipality had not taken any steps to enforce it.
The applicant had then constructed a boundary wall that obstructed access to the respondents’ garage.
Earlier, the respondents had turned to court to be given access to their garage and the applicant had immediately demolished the wall on advice of her legal representative.
The respondents said they would suffer more prejudice and inconvenience than the applicant if a demolition order was granted.
In reply, the applicant stated that when she had moved into her property, the respondents had indicated to her where the boundary was between the properties. She had erected the boundary wall there on the assumption that it was the true boundary.
When she had decided to make additions to her property, she had submitted plans to the municipality. It had only then became apparent that the improvements could not be implemented because of a discrepancy between the plans and the size of her property.
She had acquired the services of a land surveyor who had established the true boundary.
Judge Gerrit Muller said the respondents had acquired knowledge by means of the notice that the garage unlawfully encroached the property of the applicant and had failed to engage with the municipality to rectify the unlawful encroachment.
He ordered the respondents to, within a month, demolish or partly demolish the structure that encroached on their neighbours’ property.
Cape Times
Related Topics: