Neighbours of a now nearly completed three-storey building in Durban’s plush Mentone Road — which has already been deemed to be illegal by a judge — are continuing in their battle to stop the eThekwini municipality from belatedly authorising its construction.
The developers, the MRM Family Trust, have now lodged an application with the city for the property to be given an individual “special zoning”, to comply with town planning laws.
But the neighbour who spearheaded the legal challenge, the Hansa family whose home is in front of what they describe as a “monstrosity”, have filed an objection to this.
The Hansa family took the city and the trust to court after noticing the building under construction behind their house was being built on three levels — not the two storeys and a “basement” as was permitted by the zoning.
The effective three-storey building is equivalent in height to a standard seven-storey apartment block. It is now conceded that the coverage exceeds the permissible 40% and apparently needs to be increased to 50%.
— Attorney Muhammad Randeree
Ahmed Mohamed Hansa complained that the building “loomed large” over his house and cast a “monstrous shadow” from midday.
He also submitted that it was an eyesore and had caused a reduction in the value of his property from R10.5m to R6.5m.
In May 2025, Durban high court acting judge Warren Shapiro set aside the building plans, declaring that the building contravened town planning controls in that it was three storeys and each exceeded the permitted storey height of 4.5m.
In effect, he said the city should never have approved the plans.
In the meantime construction on the building continued, and the trust submitted a “special consent” application but then withdrew it because of the number of objections from neighbours.
It has now applied for the property to be declared a “special zone”, submitting that it was an innocent party, given that the city had approved the plans.
It also claimed there was “conflict” between the national building regulations and the city’s town planning scheme regarding the permissible height of a storey.
In its document filed with the city, the trust’s expert, Kavi Soni, says the trust had not opposed the court application — “made at the instance of disgruntled neighbours” — because it believed the city would “successfully defend its approval” of the plans.
He said the cost of demolition was “totally disproportionate” to any harm that would arise if the building were authorised through the scheme amendment application.
“Without furnishing any quotations at this stage, it is patently obvious that it will cost millions of rand … as it will not be a case of simply reducing the height if the objectors are correct in arguing that the maximum permitted height for all three storeys exceeds the maximum.
“A scheme amendment gives the municipality an opportunity to make a fair, reasonable and rational decision,” Soni said.
However, attorney Muhammad Randeree, who represents the Hansa family, says Shapiro’s judgment had not been appealed and therefore could not be “circumvented”.
In his written objection, he said there was no conflict between national and city regulations. He said Shapiro had gone further than just setting aside the plans, but had also concluded that the building could not be approved, in any event, because it derogated from the value of neighbouring properties.
“No amount of tinkering will alter this fact,” he said.
Randeree also said it was “inconceivable” the MLM Trust, and its professionals, were “blissfully ignorant of the gross contraventions” regarding both height and coverage.
And it had now been conceded that the lower floor was never a basement.
A professional land surveyor, commissioned by the Hansa family, who inspected all the records, had concluded that this was not an innocent party making an innocent application “but indicates manipulation”.
Randeree said the application had the hallmarks of a “last resort” to legalise a building that “grossly contravenes its zoning (Special Residential 1200) in practically every respect.
“The effective three-storey building is equivalent in height to a standard seven-storey apartment block. It is now conceded that the coverage exceeds the permissible 40% and apparently needs to be increased to 50%.
“Illegal structures ought not to be permitted to remain. Certainly a scheme change cannot be justified on the basis that it may avoid the need for demolition. But that will be a matter for a court to determine if there is no voluntary demolition.”
It is believed the application and its objections will be dealt with through the relevant departments, committees and, ultimately, the full council.
City spokesperson Gugu Sisilana could not give a timeframe on when this would occur. She said the application had been lodged to introduce “additional controls” to ensure the development was properly regulated.
She said it was “incorrect” to suggest that the city condoned developers who disregarded the law.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.