Marble Towers part of a bigger story

If you’ve spent any time on X over the past few weeks, you’ve probably seen Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero and various commentators locked in a public battle over Marble Towers in Johannesburg. Technically, it’s a dispute about a building in Johannesburg’s CBD. In reality, it raises many more questions about how cities enforce the rules governing the built environment. For those who haven’t been following every court filing, here’s the basic version. The owners of Marble Towers approached the court seeking an urgent interdict against the City of Johannesburg. They argued that the city was threatening to demolish structures on the property without following the proper legal process. They wanted the court to stop any demolition, prevent officials from entering the site for that purpose and compel the city to hand over reports and documents relating to its enforcement actions. The city, on the other hand, argued that the structures in question were illegal because they had been erected without approved building plans. The city said notices had been issued over several years, compliance opportunities had been provided and the owners had failed to address the issues. The city also raised concerns about fire safety, blocked emergency exits and public risk. Last week, the court handed down its decision. It found that the structures were indeed illegal because there were no approved building plans. It dismissed the urgent application, ruled that the owners had failed to establish a basis for an interim interdict and confirmed the city’s right to enforce building regulations and fire safety laws. Importantly, however, the court also made it clear that the city cannot arrive with bulldozers and start demolishing structures. Proper legal procedures needed to be followed. The owners have been given an opportunity to regularise the structures, submit compliant plans, address fire safety concerns and secure the site. On paper that might sound like a straightforward victory for th