Madiya v Peete and Another (061865/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 522 (2 June 2025)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG

CASE
NO: 061865/2025

DATE:
15-05-2025

REPORTABLE:
NO.

(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO.

(3)
REVISED.

In
the matter between

MADIYA,
SS                                            

Applicant

and

PEETE,
NTN                                                           

First Respondent

CITY OF
JOHANNESBURG                            

Second Respondent

JUDGMENT

YACOOB,
J:

The applicant in this matter seeks to
be heard urgently to obtain an order that the first respondent
demolish structures which are,
according to the applicant,
encroaching on the applicant’s property. The applicant obtained
transfer of the property in November
2024 and intends to build on the
property some additional rooms which she intends to rent out. The
applicant has not yet obtained
planning permission to build the
rooms, nor has she permission to rent out rooms, to the extent that
that may be necessary depending
on the type of rental she
contemplates. She has not demonstrated that she has purchased
building materials.

According to the founding affidavit,
the urgency is in the loss she is incurring from having what she
contends are building materials
stored at apparently R2 000 month,
plus the loss of rental income from the unbuilt rooms. However, when
one looks at the receipts
provided for the so-called building
materials, they are not building materials, but fittings for rooms
which still have to be built.
The applicant, having bought these
items in January, must herself bear the consequences of having bought
them before having built
the rooms.

Secondly, there is no evidence that
she is paying R2 000 per month for storage of these items. The
invoice annexed in support of
this contention is for R2 000 for
two months, at R1 000 per month. Third, the applicant makes
absolutely no allegation that
she is unable to store the items
herself. There is no possibility that that planning permission would
have been obtained and the
rooms built by the time she has now come
to court, especially since she has not even applied for planning
permission. So there
is no urgency established for this application.

The applicant’s council attempted to
convince this Court that because there is an encroachment and the
applicant has a right, that
that makes the matter urgent. It does
not. Every ordinary litigant who comes to this Court comes here in an
attempt to assert a
right which they claim they have. The simple
existence of a right does not make a matter urgent.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE MATTER IS
STRUCK FROM THE ROLL FOR WANT OF URGENCY.

YACOOB, J

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

DATE:
……………….