certificate of occupancy- Building Standard Act, 103 of IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 2016/12186

Transcription

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE ( 1) REPORT ABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED: CASE NO: 2016/12186 In the matter between: EGAN PROPERTY GROUP (PTY) LIMITED JEAN AVENUE VILLAGE (PTY) LIMITED RAPFUND INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED LUVON INVESTMENTS (PTY) LIMITED First Applicant Second Applicant Third Applicant Fourth Applicant and THE CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Respondent Coram: Judgment: Heard on: Decided on: Adams J Adams J 8 June September 2017 Summary: Municipality - s 14 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standard Act, 103 of certificate of occupancy-

2 2 ORDER 1. The respondent shall take a decision, within fourteen days of the date of this order, on the request of the applicants for the issue of a 'Certificate of Occupancy' as contemplated in s 14 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 in respect of all the buildings constructed by the applicants on Erf 779 (consolidated from Erf 777 and Erf 778), De Hoewe Extension 266; Erf 782 (consolidated from Erf 780 and Erf 781), De Hoewe Extension 275; and Erf 814 (consolidated from Erf 840 and Erf 841), De Hoewe 0 Extension ~1 (cumulatively referred to as 'the Jean Crossing Shopping Centre'). 2. If pursuant to order 1 above the respondent's decision is in favour of the applicants in that it (the respondent) decides to issue the applicants with the certificate of occupancy, then the respondent is ordered to deliver the 'Certificate of Occupancy' to the applicants within seven days of the date of the said decision; 3. If pursuant to order 1 above the respondent's decision is against the applicants in that it (the respondent) decides not to issue the applicants with the certificate of occupancy, then the respondent is ordered to furnish the applicants with full reasons for such refusal within seven days of the date of such decision. 4. The respondent shall within fourteen days of this order return to and release from the first applicant guarantees numbers: GT 14849/2015 and GT 14850/ The respondent shall issue a certificate in terms of s 82 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance 15 of 1986 to the applicants within fourteen days of the date of this order in respect of the shopping centre development.

3 3 # ~ r'aic/9t/ Ory'. 6. The respondent shall pay the applicants' cost of this applicant, iaeludil'lg the east consequent upon the er9ployr9ent of two Counsel. JUDGMENT ADAMS J [1]. This is an application for an order compelling the respondent to take a decision on the request by the applicants for the issue of a 'Certificate of Occupancy' in respect of a shopping cent(e, constructed and owned by the applicants in De Hoewes, Centurion. In the event of the decision pursuant to the aforesaid order going in their favour in that the respondent decides to issue the certificate, the applicants also apply for an order compelling the respondent to deliver to them the 'certificate of occupancy'. If pursuant to the granting of the first order, the decision is made that the request for the issue of the certificate of occupancy is refused, then the applicants ask for an order directing the respondent to furnish to them full reason for the respondent's refusal to issue the certificate. Furthermore, the applicant applies for an order compelling the respondent to release to the first applicant performance guarantees, issued by Nedbank on behalf of the first applicant in favour of the respondent pursuant to a 'Services Agreement' concluded between the parties. Lastly, the applicants apply for an order compelling the respondent to issue them with certificates in terms of s 82 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 15 of 1986 ('the Town Planning Ordinance Act') in respect to the shopping centre. [2]. The four Applicants are the co - owners of the Jean Crossing Shopping Centre in Centurion and the properties upon which such shopping centre is situated namely:

4 4 (a) Erf 779 (before consolidation known as Erven 777 and 778) De Hoewes Ext 266; (b) Erf 782 (before consolidation known as Erven 780 and 781) De Hoewes, Ext 275; (c) Erf 842 (before consolidation known as Erven 840 and 841) De Hoewes Ext 301. (Collectively referred to as 'the shopping centre') [3]. The matter turns on the application to the facts of the following legislative provisions: s 14 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, 103 of 1977 ('the National Building Act') and s 82 of the Town Planning and Townships Ordinance, 15 of 1986 ('the Town Planning Ordinance'). [4]. The relevant provisions of S 14 of the National Building Act provides as follows:- '14 Certificates of occupancy in respect of buildings (1 ) A local authority shall within 14 days after the owner of a building of wh ich the erection has been completed, or any person having an interest therein, has requested it in writing to issue a certificate of occupancy in respect of such building- (a) issue such certificate of occupancy if it is of the opinion that such building has been erected in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the conditions on which approval was granted in terms of section 7, and if certificates issued in terms of the provisions of subsection (2) and. where applicable, subsection (2A), in respect of such building have been submitted to it;

5 5 (b) in writing notify such owner or person that it refuses to issue such certificate of occupancy if it is not so satisfied or if a certificate has not been so issued and submitted to it. (1A) The local authority may, at the request of the owner of the building or any other person having an interest therein, grant permission in writing to use the building before the issue of the certificate of occupancy referred to in subsection (1), for such period and on such conditions as may be specified in such permission, which period and conditions may be extended or altered, as the case may be, by such local authority. (2) (3) (4) (a) The owner of any building or, any person having an interest therein, erected or being erected with the approval of a local authority, who occupies or uses such building or permits the occupation or use of such building- (i) unless a certificate of occupancy has been issued in terms of subsection (1) (a) in respect of such building; (ii) except in so far as it is essential for the erection of such building; (iii) during any period not being the period in respect of which such local authority has granted permission in writing for the occupation or use of such building or in contravention of any condition on which such permission has been granted; or, (iv) otherwise than in such circumstances and on such conditions as may be prescribed by national building regulation, shall be guilty of an offence.'

6 6 [5]. Central to the issue before me is the definition of the word 'building' and the phrase 'building of which the erection has been completed' ins 14(1). [6]. S 1 of the National Building Act defines 'building' thus: "'building" includes - (a) any other structure, whether of a temporary or permanent nature and irrespective of the materials used in the erection thereof, erected or used for or in connection with- (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) the accommodation or convenience of human beings or animals; the manufacture, processing, storage, display or sale of any goods; the rendering of any service; the destruction or treatment of refuse or other waste materials; the cultivation or growing of any plant or crop; (b) any wall, swimming bath, swimming pool, reservoir or bridge or any other structure connected therewith; (c) any fuel pump or any tank used in connection therewith; (d) any part of a building, including a building as defined in paragraph (a), (b) or (c); (e) any facilities or system, or part or portion thereof, within or outside but incidental to a building, for the provision of a water supply, drainage, sewerage, stormwater disposal, electricity supply or other similar service in respect of the building;' [7]. Section 82 of the Town Planning Ordinance, 15 of 1986, deals with a prohibition against the registration of certain Deeds of Transfer. The relevant s 82(1)(b)(ii)(cc) thereof provides that:-

7 7 '... the Registrar shall not register a deed of transfer by which the ownership of an erf in a township... which has been declared an approved township in terms of section 79, is transferred by the township owner..., until such time as the local authority within whose area of jurisdiction the township is situated has certified that it will, within a period of 3 months from the date of the certificate, be able to provide the erf with such services as it may deem necessary and that it is prepared to consider an application for the approval of a building plan in respect of the erf'. [8]. Township applications for the properties that form the subject matter of this matter (and on which the development of the shopping centre took place) were received: (a) X275; on 2 November 2011 in respect of the township Die Hoewes (b) X266; on 3 November 2011 in respect of the township Die Hoewes (c) X301 ; and on 13 September 2012 in respect of the township Die Hoewes ( d) on 13 September 2012 in respect of the township Die Hoewes X302. This township is not relevant in this matter as the shopping centre is erected in the other three townships only, and Die Hoewes Extension 302 is not part of this development. [9]. According to standard procedures, those township applications were circulated in the various departments of the Municipality for comments and in this regard the following comments were received by the Roads and Stormwater Division of the Department of Transport and Roads:

8 8 (a) In a letter of 11 November 2011, in respect of the township Die Hoewes X275, the comment in paragraph thereof was as follows: 'The existing stormwater system in Rabie Street is insufficient and must be upgraded. The proposed township is therefore a leap development for stormwater.' (b) In a letter of 11 November 2011, in respect of the township Die Hoewes X266, the comment was identical. (c) In a letter of 8 October 2012, in respect of the township Die Hoewes X301, the comment in paragraph 1.4 thereof was as follows: There is no stormwater connection available for the township. The township is a leap development regarding stormwater.' (d) In a letter of 8 October 2012, in respect of the township Die Hoewes X302, the comment was identical. [1 O]. The aforegoing demonstrates aptly the basis on which the case of the respondent is premised. That is that an integral part of establishment of the Townships and the development of the shopping centre, as approved by the respondent, was that the applicants was to construct a main stormwater drainage system which would cater the shopping centre in addition to the stormwater drainage requirements of the surrounding area, which at the time approval of the Towns hips were in need of an upgrade. [11 ]. As and at the date of the launching of this application the Jean Crossing Shopping Centre was complete and fully let. All services required for the operation of the shopping centre had been supplied by the respondent and the applicants were paying for all such services, charges and all rates that are

9 9 levied on the property. It is a completely functional and operational shopping centre. A temporary occupation certificate in terms of S 14(1A) of the National Building Act was issued by the Respondent on the 23rd April [12]. Subsequently, the respondent has however refused to issue a final 'certificate of occupancy'. The reason for such refusal is because, so it was submitted by the respondent, having regard to the wide meaning of the word 'building' as defined ins 1 of Act 103 of 1977, the erection of the 'building' had not been completed and thus it was not yet under any legal obligation to take a decision on any purported request for the issue of 'Certificate of Occupancy'. Standing in the way of the issue of the 'Certificate of Occupancy', according to the respondent is the fact that the applicants have not completed the construction of the main stormwater drainage system, which means that the 'buildings' in respect of which the applicants require these certificate, have not been completed. [13]. All necessary documentation, notably a site development plan, building plans and service agreements in respect of the services actually rendered to the property, were duly issued and fully complied with as required by legislation. The shopping centre had also been built in accordance with the approved SOP and approved building plans. [14]. The main dispute between the parties relates to the construction and completion of a 'main stormwater drainage system', which the applicants agreed to erect on behalf of the respondent, at a total estimated cost of R , in terms of a 'Roads and Stormwater Services Agreement' ('the Services Agreement') concluded between the parties on the 2nd of October The respondent is of the view that the fact that the applicants have not performed their obligations in terms of this agreement means that the building

10 10 has not been completed and therefore they are not entitled to a certificate of occupancy. [15]. This interpretation of the 'services agreement' that the applicants would install an external stormwater disposal system for the Greater Centurion Area, for which the first applicant would be reimbursed, so it is submitted by the applicants, is not relevant. It is a separate agreement which plays no part in the shopping centre in respect of which the respondent should issue a 'certificate of occupancy'. [16]. The actual agreement in respect of the enlargement of the stormwater system appears at Paragraph 3.2 of the Services Agreement, which reads thus: '3.2 Main stormwater drainage systems: The applicant has to construct the stormwater systems as per drawing numbers /100 and /101 (see annexure 3). The total estimated cost of the system is R Based on this cost the municipality has to contribute an estimate amount of R ,48 towards the enlargement of the system. Due to the magnitude of the enlargement of the stormwater systems and the enormous financial implications thereof, the municipality and applicant agreed on 4 interim refunds as per attached addendum letter to the services reports for Die Hoewes Extensions 266, 275, 301 and 302, dated 24 July 2013 (see annexure 5). These payments will only be made by the municipality once the respective portions of work has been completed, inspected and taken over by the municipality. The fourth and final payment will be setoff against the bulk services contributions.' [17]. By all accounts this agreement was an extremely large undertaking valued at an amount in excess of R22 million. The applicants submit that this

11 11 enlargement of the stormwater system was for the general benefit of the entire area and the respondent, and it was contemplated that it would take some time. It was in fact envisioned that it would have been completed in four phases. It was clearly never contemplated in this agreement that the enlargement of the stormwater system would be part of, and linked to, the building and the operation of the shopping centre. [18]. It was for the very reason that the four phases of enlarging the stormwater system would take considerably longer than the finalisation of the shopping centre on the property and that the applicants discussed with the Municipality's officials the fact of such time differential. As a result of such discussion and the fact that the enlargement of the stormwater system was an additional service that was not dedicated to or linked to the development of the Jean Crossing Shopping Centre, but in fact aimed at alleviating a severe stormwater problem experienced within the larger area that it was agreed that the enlargement of the stormwater line did not form part of the necessary services for the shopping centre and was a completely separate arrangement. [19]. This was the understanding of the parties at the relevant time, according to the applicants, and in confirmation thereof a confirmatory letter to that effect was issued by the respondent on the 20 1 h September This letter confirmed that the applicants were required only to install the internal stormwater lines, as agreed upon in the Roads and Stormwater Services Agreement, to become eligible to be issued with certificates in terms of s 101 or s 82 of the Town Planning Ordinance. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:- "We hereby acknowledge the fact that Egan Property Group (Pty) Ltd (your client) has agreed to install a major stormwater line from his development to the Hennops River, as indicated in the Roads and Stormwater Service Agreement. Kindly note that the Municipality will not withhold any of the Section 101 or

12 12 Section 82 Certificates for the abovementioned developments for the additional external stormwater line which have to be installed on the Municipality's behalf. Once the internal stormwater line has been installed, as agreed upon in the Stormwater Service Agreement, the relevant certificates, as mentioned above will have to be issued by the Municipality.' [20]. The First Applicant continued with the building of the shopping centre in accordance with the required authorisations and on 1ih May 2014 the Project Engineers, Gibb Engineering & Architecture, issued a final certificate of completion in terms of which it was certified that all services had been installed and the centre had passed all quality control tests. The first applicant also completed phase 2 of the shopping centre, and all the building plans in respect of Phase 1 and Phase 2 were approved by the respondent on the 1 i h October [21]. In respect of both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the development the Municipality's Building and Safety Inspectors inspected the buildings on numerous occasions and all directives that were issued by the inspectors pertaining to for example the amendment or addition of certain features and structures, such as security gates and pedestrian crossings, were all complied with to the satisfaction of the respondent. [22]. On 18 1 h of December 2015 the applicants requested the respondent to issue the applicants with a 'certificate of occupancy' in terms of s 14(1)(a) of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of At the time of their request for an occupancy certificate, the applicants aver that they have complied with the provisions of s 14, which entitled them to be issued with the certificate.

13 13 [23]. On or about Thursday, the 18 1 h February 2016, a meeting was held between the applicants and the respondent with a view to deal with the request by the respondent for the issue of a certificate. At this meeting the respondent undertook that they would make a decision on the request by the applicants shortly. [24]. The applicants pointed out the respondent that in terms of the law, the issuing of an occupancy certificate relates to matters of safety of inhabitation of a particular building. If that building has been constructed in accordance with approved building plans, there can be no residual authority to refuse an occupancy certificate, unless the building or structure deviates from the approved building plans in some respect which renders it unsafe for occupation. [25]. As indicated above, all structures on the property in question had been built in accordance with approved building plans and had been found to be in order by the Safety and Building Inspectors of the Municipality itself. It was submitted that there is no basis upon which the Municipality can refuse to issue an occupancy certificate in the present matter either on the basis of law or fact. [26]. Furthermore, it was submitted that all services necessary to qualify for the issuing of a certificate in terms s 82 of the Town Planning Ordinance have been installed and had been certified by the Municipality. Despite this fact and despite demand by the applicants, such certificates have not been issued. [27]. Furthermore, the installation of all the internal services that were secured by the guarantees numbered GT14849/2015 and GT14850/2015 had been finalised and certified more than a year ago, but despite such fact and further demand, the Municipality has failed or refused to return the aforementioned guarantees to the Applicants.

14 14 [28]. The respondent, despite the fact that the applicants are entitled to be issued with a certificate of occupancy, believes that until such time as applicants complete the external stormwater drainage system, which is required to be completed over four phases, before the applicants would be entitled to be issued with the occupancy certificate or the s 82 certificate and also before it is prepared to return the guarantees to the first applicant. [29]. In sum, the respondent's case is that the external stormwater disposal system has not been completed to the satisfaction of the respondent, as required by the Civil Engineering Services Agreement relating to the establishment of the townships and the erection of the shopping centre. Therefore, so it is argued by the respondent, it is not entitled or obliged to issue any of the certificates in question. [30]. I agree with the submission on behalf of the applicants that the approach by the respondent is not sustainable. In any event, there was an express agreement by the respondent on the 20th September 2013 that the completion of the external stormwater disposal system would not have any impact on the s 82 certificate of the shopping centre. [31]. Furthermore, the issue of the occupancy certificate has nothing to do whatsoever with any external services. Occupancy certificates relate to whether or not the buildings that are occupied or to be occupied are safe for human occupation. Not only have these buildings been occupied since the middle of 2015, but also the respondent itself has approved and confirmed all matters relating to the building plans and the building of the structures in accordance with such building plans at the required levels of quality and compliance. There therefore is no basis for this argument by the respondent to avoid its obligations to issue the required certificates.

15 15 [32]. I also cannot accept the submission on behalf of the respondent that the definition of 'building' as defined in terms Act 103 of 1977 is to include an 'extended technical meaning'. I do not understand the basis of this argument [33]. The correct approach to the interpretation of a document, including legislation, is now firmly established in our law. One must have due regard to the language of the clause within the context of the contract as a whole (the intra-textual context), the background to the preparation and production of the contractual document, that is, the circumstances attendant upon its coming into existence, the material known to those responsible for its production, the apparent purpose to which the clause was directed, and a sensible meaning producing the most businesslike result. [34]. From the outset the interpreter must consider the context and the language together, with neither predominating over the other. Any evaluation of the circumstances attendant upon the contract coming into existence requires that evidence be admissible to contextualise the document to establish its factual matrix which includes both background circumstances and surrounding circumstances. In Aktiebolaget Hassle and Another v Triomed (Pty) Ltd, 2003 (1) SA 155 (SCA) para 1, Nugent JA observed: "'In law" remarked Lord Steyn in Rex v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex Parle Daly, 2001 (3) All ER 433 (HL) at 447a, "context is everything". And so it is when it comes to construing the language used in documents, whether the document be a statute, or a contract, or, as in this case, a patent specification.' [35]. Moreover, in addition to the language and context, the purpose of a provision may be paramount. The interpreter must endeavour to arrive at an interpretation which gives effect to such purpose. The purpose (which is usually

16 16 clear or easily discernible) is used, in conjunction with the appropriate meaning of the language of the provision, as a guide in order to ascertain the intention. [36]. Applying these principles to the present matter, it is difficult to see how the agreement concluded between the parties in respect of the main stormwater drainage system on the 2nd October 2013 can be interpreted as being 'any facilities or system, or part or portion thereof, within or outside but incidental to a building, for the provision of a water supply, drainage, sewerage, stormwater disposal, electricity supply or other similar service in respect of the building'. [37]. A further important consideration is that, the property has been occupied for over a year by the time the applicants filed this application and the respondent has been levying its full quota of rates and taxes, service charges, water and electricity usage charges. [38]. The respondent accepts that the physical buildings and all services on the site have been completed. It however claims that the external bulk stormwater line, that will serve approximately households, numerous businesses and a catchment area of km 2 constitutes infrastructure 'incidental to the building'. As I indicated supra, this submission is not sustainable. In the context of the relevant legislation, that is an interpretation which cannot possibly be given to the section. [39]. The same findings are applicable to the guarantees and for the same reasons. The guarantees refer to 'The installation and provision of the internal engineering services'. For the reasons alluded to by me above, one cannot in any manner or form construe these guarantees as referring to an external stormwater system serving properties other than the shopping centre.

17 17 [40]. The stormwater drainage system within the boundaries of the shopping centre has been completed. It is also accepted that all the other physical buildings as well as all the infrastructure, as dealt with above, have been completed in accordance with the duly approved building plans and the certificates contemplated in terms of Section 14(2) and Section 14(2A) of the Building Regulations Act have been issued. Release of Service Guarantees [41]. As regards the release of the Services Guarantees, I am in agreement with the submissions on behalf of the applicants that the Services Agreement in question is an agreement 'in respect of the scheme for the construction of streets and stormwater drains' in the proposed townships comprising the sites on which the shopping centre was developed. [42]. Although clause 3 of the Services Agreement imposed upon the applicants the contractual obligation to make provision for stormwater control for the area to the satisfaction of the respondent, this was irrelevant to the development of the Townships and the construction of the shopping centre. [43]. Clause 6.1 and clause 6.2 of the Services Agreement provide for the provision of a guarantee (as a surety for the construction of streets and stormwater drains) and the provision of a maintenance guarantee (as a surety for the maintenance in respect thereof). The guarantees in question were provided in pursuance of these clauses. [44]. Both guarantees provide that the guarantees shall remain in force until such time as the Municipality has notified the Guarantor (Nedbank) in the writing that the 'foregoing service' has been rendered and installed in full and

18 18 has been properly maintained. These conditions have been complied with for the reasons mentioned above. The respondent itself has signed off on the shopping centre and the engineering services. It therefore cannot refuse to return he guarantees. The fact of the matter is that an application to establish a township was approved in terms of Town Planning Ordinance 15 of 1986 and that the applicants are responsible for the installation and provision of the 'internal engineering services', which services have been installed and provided and which have been approved by the respondent. [45]. I do not agree with the submissions on behalf of the respondent that, in the context of the framework of the Town Planning Ordinance 15 of 1986, as part of the overall authorization, approval and/or conditions for the development of the townships in questions, and in section 1 (1) thereof, the definition of 'internal engineering services' is to include the main stormwater drainage system, which was intended to supply a whole community outside of the shopping centre. [46]. As regards the s 82 certificate, the respondent refuses to issue same on exactly the same basis as its refusal to issue the s 14 certificate of occupancy and its refusal to release the guarantees. I have already found that these grounds are not sustainable. Accordingly, the applicants are entitled to an order compelling the respondent to issue the s 82 certificate. [47]. In this context the word 'services' refers to the standard engineering services required for any township development: electricity, potable water, sewerage, roads and stormwater drainage - one of the services that a local authority must certify that it will be able to provide within a period of three months to the immovable property in question is also the service of providing a proper and effective stormwater drainage. However, the fact that due to the inadequacies in its drainage system for the area, the respondent cannot

19 19 withhold the certificates from the applicants who is able to ensure that the services are provided in the shopping centre. [48]. The purpose of section 82(1 )(b)(ii)(cc) of Ordinance 15 of 1986 is to protect members of the general public against the risk of taking transfer of a property only to find out later that no or insufficient civil engineering services (such as a road network, potable water reticulation systems, sewerage systems, stormwater disposal systems and electricity supply) are available at that site. In our modern society no person can reside or work productively without those civil engineering services being available and it is an affront to human dignity if this is allowed. [49]. I do not believe that the incomplete stormwater drainage infrastructure stands in the way of the issue of such a certificate in terms of section 82(1 )(b)(ii)(cc) of Ordinance 15 of Costs [50]. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that I should grant a punitive cost order against the applicants. [51]. I do not believe that a case has been made out for such an order. I therefore intend granting an ordinary cost order, which I believe would be just and equitable. ORDER In the circumstances I make the following order:

20 20 1. The respondent shall take a decision, within fourteen days of the date of this order, on the request of the applicants for the issue of a 'Certificate of Occupancy' as contemplated in s 14 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977 in respect of all the buildings constructed by the applicants on Erf 779 (consolidated from Erf 777 and Erf 778), De Hoewe Extension 266; Erf 782 (consolidated from Erf 780 and Erf 781), De Hoewe Extension 275; and Erf 814 (consolidated from Erf 840 and Erf 841), De Hoewe 0 Extension 31 (cumulatively referred to as 'the Jean Crossing Shopping Centre'). A 2. If pursuant to order 1 above the respondent's decision is in favour of the applicants in that it (the respondent) decides to issue the applicants with the certificate of occupancy, then the respondent is ordered to deliver the 'Certificate of Occupancy' to the applicants within seven days of the date of the said decision; 3. If pursuant to order 1 above the respondent's decision is against the applicants in that it (the respondent) decides not to issue the applicants with the certificate of occupancy, then the respondent is ordered to furnish the applicants with full reasons for such refusal within seven days of the date of such decision. 4. The respondent shall within fourteen days of this order return to and release from the first applicant guarantees numbers: GT 14849/2015 and GT 14850/ The respondent shall issue a certificate in terms of s 82 of the Town,/ Planning and Townships Ordinance 15 of 1986 to the applicants within fourteen days of the date of this order in respect of the shopping centre development. /1/'/',(/C/17' /0/V. 6. The respondent shall pay the applicants' cost of this applicant, inch.1ding the cost consequent upon the ea1ploya1ent of two Counsel.

21 21 LADAMS Judge of the High Court Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg HEARD ON: JUDGMENT DATE: FOR THE APPLICANTS: INSTRUCTED BY: FOR THE RESPONDENT: INSTRUCTED BY: 8 th June th September 2017 Adv Mervyn P Rip SC, Ivan Pauw & Partners Adv MM Oosthuizen, together with Adv D A De Kock Malebye Motaung Mtembo Attorneys