Case Law[2023] ZAGPJHC 88South Africa
Singh v Body Corporate of ST Tropez (25559/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 88 (3 February 2023)
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPJHC 88
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Singh v Body Corporate of ST Tropez (25559/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 88 (3 February 2023)
Singh v Body Corporate of ST Tropez (25559/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 88 (3 February 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_88.html
sino date 3 February 2023
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case
no.
: 25559/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED.
03/02/2023
In
the matter between:
LUNESH
SINGH
APPLICANT
and
THE
BODY CORPORATE OF ST TROPEZ
RESPONDENT
Coram:
Dlamini J
Date
of Request for reasons:
03 November
2022
Date
of delivery of reasons:
03 February 2023
These
reasons are deemed to have been delivered electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives via email and
same
shall be uploaded onto the caselines system.
JUDGMENT
DLAMINI
J
[1]
On 8 September 2022, I made a draft order
dated 8 September 2022 an order of this court. The following are my
reasons for this order.
[2]
This is an application wherein the
applicant seeks an order to restrain the respondent from removing
certain motor vehicles parked
in certain bays in various Units of the
St Tropez complex (St Tropez).
[3]
The respondents instituted a counter
application, where the respondent seeks an order compelling the
applicant to remove certain
motor vehicles parked in various in
certain parking from St Tropez.
[4]
The applicant is Mr. Lunesh Singh an adult
male and a member of the respondent. The applicant owns units 22, 23,
25, and 31.
[5]
The respondent is the body corporate of the
ST Tropez sectional titles scheme situated. The respondent members
are constituted by
the owners of the 36 Units located in St Tropez.
[6]
In his founding papers, the applicant
testified that he is a member of the respondent and owns several
units in the complex, these
being units 22, 23, 25, and 31. He says
each unit has one allocated undercover parking bay and is allowed to
park vehicles in the
visitor's parking.
[7]
The applicant avers that on 21 May 2021,
the respondent placed notices on the motor vehicles that were parked
in the parking bay
of his 4 units. The applicant says the respondent
has abused its powers and targeted vehicles parked in his 4 units,
denying the
residents of the 4 units their right to parking.
[8]
In addition to opposing this application,
the respondent launched a counter application, where the respondent
sought an order compelling
the applicant to remove certain vehicles
from ST Tropez.
[9]
The respondent testified that the applicant
has unlawfully parked a number of the applicant’s vehicles
either on common property
or on parking bays that have been
specifically allocated to other owners.
[10]
The respondent further submit that the
applicant has not obtained the trustee's written concern to park the
said vehicles. Further,
that the applicant has no entitlement to park
vehicles belonging to his private business on the parking bays and
common areas of
St Tropez.
[11]
The question to be asked is whether the
respondent is entitled to remove the applicant's vehicles.
[12]
Guiding us is Rule 3 of the Conduct Rules
as prescribed in terms of section 10 (1) (b) of the Sectional Titles
Schemes Management
Act, 8 of 2011 read with regulation 6 of the
Sectional Titles Schemes Management Regulations of 2016 which
provides as follows
that;
"The owner or occupier of a
section must not, except in a case of emergency, without written
consent or approval of the trustees,
park a vehicle, allow a vehicle
to stand, or permit a visitor to park or stand a vehicle on any part
of the common property other
than a parking bay allocated to that
particular section or parking bay specifically allocated for visitors
parking"
[13]
On the evidence presented before this
Court, the applicant has not provided any evidence that the applicant
had sought the consent
or approval of the trustees to park the
vehicles in the manner that the applicant did. The applicant has
failed to show any emergency
that justifies the illegal parking of
his vehicle. There is no doubt and it is apparent that the vehicles
interfere with the use
and enjoyment of the common property by other
members of ST Tropez.
[14]
I now turn to deal with the applicant’s
main application.
[15]
In his main submission, the applicant
denies that his vehicles are parked on the common property. He argues
that his vehicles are
parked in their allocated parking bays.
Further, those vehicles that had parked in other units have since
been removed.
[16]
The main application, in my view, is
frivolous, the allegations are bald and not supported by any facts
submitted in this Court.
This is so because the applicant has failed
to demonstrate that the respondents have removed any of his vehicles.
No attempt has
been made by the applicant to seek permission and
undertaking that the respondents will not remove the said vehicles.
In fact,
it is the applicant who has parked his motor vehicles
illegally, in parking bays that are not allocated to the parking bays
of
his 4 units.
[17]
In all the circumstances mentioned above, I
am satisfied that the applicant's main application should be
dismissed and the counter
application is granted.
ORDER
1.
The order marked X that I signed on 8
September 2022 is made an order of this court.
DLAMINI
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Date
for Request for Reasons:
03 November 2022
Delivered:
03 February 2023
For
the Applicant:
Lunesh Singh (in person)
joelsingh@indlovu.biz
For
the Respondent
:
Adv
N.G Louw
nlouw@lawcircle.co.za
Instructed
by:
Beyers Incorporated Attorneys
rasb@beyersinc.co.za
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Singh v Nedbank Limited and Another (942/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 92 (9 February 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 92High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)100% similar
Singh obo Tlapu v Road Accident Fund (26025/20) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1246 (3 December 2024)
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1246High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Singh v S (A106/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 496 (19 March 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 496High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Singh and Another v Progressive Compliance Fund and Others (24848/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 35 (19 January 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 35High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)99% similar
Singh v South African Reserve Bank (35964/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1211 (22 September 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1211High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar