This time a home owner built a full 9,5 m above the local height restrictions.

The complainant asked that the illegal structure should be demolished. The court, however, ruled that it was not obliged to decide in the complainant’s favour although it did have the right to do so – but it did then, in fact, rule that the offending structure should be demolished.

In making its decision, the court commented that South African courts had traditionally been reluctant to authorize the removal of completed ‘valuable’ buildings, if other remedies such as the award of damages and compensation or the alteration of the building were possible. In this case, said the court, taking all circumstances into account, two factors had influenced their decision.

The first was that the owner had continued to build after the complainant had filed for the stoppage of building work and the removal of the obstructive components. The second factor was that the inconvenience to the neighbours whose excellent views had been obscured was very high and could be classed as ‘undue and unreasonable’.

The demolition, it is said, will cost R1 million and will downgrade fairly severely the value of the existing R8 million home.

The popular newsletter, LA Law, which is read by most of the legal fraternity, suggests that there could now be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against this decision.

Clarke said that in his opinion it would be beneficial if this appeal does not succeed.

“Interference with people’s views should not be too readily condoned except perhaps in those cases where a great many people may benefit at the expense of one or two. The fact is, however, that in South Africa we have time and again seen people ‘getting away with’ insensitive and sometimes illegal view obstructions and this has gone on far too long. I do hope that this and other cases where people are now standing up for their view rights will lead to a new approach and possibly new laws on this all important matter.”