IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between:
BODY CORPORATE

JUDGMENT

"Wale Street Chambers consists of 296 registered sections. 40 of these are used as office premises, 26 are used as storerooms, S are used as retail premises, 1 is used as a penthouse and 221 are parking bays.   Wale Street Chambers is therefore an office block providing good quality office accommodation storage of a limited nature and parking facilities to it occupants. The office's is situated in Wale Street Chambers and include offices of attorneys, accountants, investment companies, surveyors and certain local government departments. Wale Street Chambers is not used as and is not intended for use as industrial premises or as premises where welding, metal work and other industrial processes are carried out."

It appears to be undisputed that first respondent has conducted a welding and other metal work business in a storeroom in the building. The allegation, which is made in the founding affidavit and admitted by first respondent, is to effect that "He uses the premises as business workshop here in Cape Town". He has expressly admitted that "the business with welding and repairs for the Greenmarket arose, because people saw me and asked me to do some work fixing little piece of iron for their canopies"

First respondent has employed one of the storerooms and two adjacent parking bays, which he is entitled to use, however, for a completely different and incompatible purpose, namely the welding of trolleys of street vendors and the provision of storage at a monthly rental, a type of mini storage facility where street vendors can overnight store their trolleys and goods.

be tested on the basis of one

'The standard for determining the substantiality of such invasions is a standard of normal persons in the particular locality. If normal persons living in the locality would regard the particular situation as definitely offensive or annoying then invasion is substantial."

"a Mickey Mouse operation"; that is a small and fairly trivial business.

The second issue which flows from the relief sought turns on first respondent's alleged abuse of the security system. It is undisputed on the papers that each owner or tenant is entitled to access to the building by way of a remote control and that further or visitors to Wale Street Chambers are required to report to reception desk. Obviously these requirements which are intended to preserve the security of the building under the present climate which operates in South Africa are reasonable and understandable.

The papers also indicate that the first respondent had tampered with and forced open the rolling door at the entrance to the garage, instructed a third party to override the security access system and permitted his clients to gain access to the building without reporting to reception desk in the main foyer.
Although the answering papers are hardly a model of clarity, having been prepared by first respondent as a layperson, it is clear that this conduct did take place as alleged and accordingly these allegations are not placed in dispute.

A further issue arises as to the employment by first respondent, of at least one of his two bays designed as a parking bay for a vehicle, for the storage of trolleys which apparently are employed by vendors at Greenmarket Square.

If a range of vendors are entitled to park their trolleys in a bay which was intended for a motor vehicle, the volume of such 'trolley' traffic by way of parking of trolleys in the building, raises the potential compromise of the security system of Wale Street Chambers.

It is my view, that whilst first respondent is perfectly entitled to use a parking bay which he owns, or which he has leased for any motor vehicle, either his own or owned by a person duly authorised by him, it would be incorrect to allow these parking bays to be used for the storage of a plethora of trolleys.

Two further issues arise. First respondent brought a counter claim in the amount of R1 800 450 and for ancillary relief. I informed the first respondent that a claim of this nature could not be brought by way of an application, but only by way of an action. If he wished to pursue his claim he would have to launch a properly considered action for the amount which he has so claimed and the other relief which he wishes to obtain from applicant, i wili therefore say no more about the counter application.

For these reasons the following order is made:

2.	First respondent is directed to comply with all such conduct rules as made from time to time applying to Wale 	Street Chambers. In order to comply with such order, first 	respondent shall be provided with a copy of the 	conduct rules and any such amendments as may be made from time to time.

3.2.1 Entering or leaving the building in any motor vehicle parked by first respondent or by any person duly authorised by him in a parking bay section owned by or leased to him.
3.2.2     Moving goods stored in section 237 into or out of the building.
33	In any way blocking access to any parking bay section in the building which is not owned by or lease to htm
34	Any way interfering with the security personal employed by the body corporate at Wale Street Chambers
35	Utilising sections 275 and 287 of Wale Street Chambers in any manner which conflicts with the zoning scheme currently applicable to Wale Street Chambers.
4. 	There is no order as to costs.