True Motives 84 (Pty) Limited v Mahdi and Another

The appellant owned Erf 178, Morningside Extension 17, adjoining Erf 177 owned by the first respondent. The first respondent undertook substantial building alterations to his dwelling close to the boundary between the properties. The City of Johannesburg, as local authority, approved the building plans in terms of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 (NBR Act). The appellant complained that it was not notified of the application, that the alterations infringed building lines, blocked sunlight, invaded privacy, were unsightly and out of character, and would substantially derogate from the market value of its property. It sought declaratory and review relief to set aside the City’s approval, and initially also sought demolition and damages. The High Court dismissed the application. Leave to appeal was granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal only on issues relating to the interpretation and application of s 7 of the NBR Act, PAJA, and delegation of authority.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case is a leading authority on the interpretation of s 7(1)(b)(ii) of the NBR Act and the limits of judicial review of municipal decisions approving building plans. It clarifies the meaning of ‘satisfaction’ and ‘probability’ in relation to derogation of value, reconciles earlier SCA authority with the Constitutional Court’s decision in Walele, and confirms that neighbouring owners have no automatic right to participate in the plan-approval process.