In a dramatic turn of events, a boundary wall erected more than two decades ago has ignited a legal battle between neighbours in the affluent Palazzo Da Vita Estate in Bedfordview, Johannesburg.

The dispute centres around an error that saw the wall built on the wrong property line, encroaching upon a portion of the adjacent property owned by the Red Cherry Trust.

The wall in question, erected more than 22 years ago, inadvertently encroaches upon the trust’s property by approximately 3.45 square metres. The matter reached the South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg as trustees of the Red Cherry Trust fought for the wall to be demolished.

The encroaching neighbour, Natalie Celeste Maroun, initially tried to resolve the issue through compensation proposals, but to no avail.

Maroun purchased her property in 2002 and proceeded to develop her home, unaware that the foundation was laid incorrectly, extending approximately 800mm further than originally planned. Ultimately, Maroun’s home encroached upon the trust’s land by about 3.45 square metres.

Despite acknowledging the mistake, she believed it would be easily rectified. However, it was only at a homeowners’ meeting in 2007 that she learned the trust had not resolved the issue despite her pleas for compensation for the encroached area.

During a 2007 homeowners’ meeting, she realised that the ongoing dispute had gone unresolved and due to this realisation, she proactively sought a reasonable settlement from the trust for the encroached area. However, the trust did not follow through on its promise to provide a proposed compensation amount and only raised objections about the encroachment in November 2023 demanding a demolition of the boundary wall

When the trust issued Maroun with a demand letter requiring the wall’s removal. Interestingly, the trust did not advocate for a new boundary wall to be established in its correct position. This letter prompted Maroun to seek a legal resolution in the high court.

She objected to the demolition on grounds that the removal of the wall would put her at a security risk and remove all privacy between the two properties, it will diminish the value of certain portion of the property, lastly, she would not be able to drive her vehicle around to the parking area situated on the side of her residence and in which instance she will not have enough space within the boundary to do so.

In its defence, the trust argued that it needed to install a water purification plant including the drilling of a bore hole and the best location for such a plant happens to be in or at the encroached area.

Maroun said the sudden need to install a water purification plant came after the trust knew about her intentions to sell a portion of her property which included the encroached boundary.

In rendering judgment, acting judge Aucamp had to weigh the implications of demolishing the wall versus granting compensation.

The judge acknowledged Maroun’s argument regarding the encroached area, highlighting its small and seemingly insignificant size. Furthermore, he pointed out that the trust has not proven that this is the sole location for drilling the intended borehole.

Judge Aucamp also mentioned that the trust would receive compensation for the encroached area. Lastly, the judge expressed concern that demolishing and replacing the boundary wall could lead to considerable inconvenience, affecting not just the parties involved in the case but potentially other estate members as well.

Ultimately, the judge ruled that tearing down the wall would cause the applicant greater inconvenience than the amount of trust space that was being utilised. It was concluded that providing compensation would be the more suitable solution instead of proceeding with the demolition.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel

Source link