Blok launched an interdict against the residents of Bo-Kaap who tried to block a crane from coming into the area, but now the company no longer possess the legal standing to pursue their relief sought in the initial interdict application,
In court papers, the new owners of the building said: “The applicant seeks to persist with the relief sought by Blok in both applications.”
In November, the Western Cape High Court granted the interdict to the developers, preventing the community from interfering with construction.
The interdict sought to prohibit residents from “causing obstructions” or “entering or trespassing on the 40 Lion Street construction site”.
Chaos erupted as Bo-Kaap residents and the police clashed over the recent developments in the area.
About 50 residents gathered outside to protest the development, with many saying the group was destroying the Bo-Kaap’s heritage.
The police had to use teargas to keep at bay protesters, who managed to stop a crane from entering the highly contested Lion Street development.
In court papers, it states that Blok entered into a written sales agreement with the new owners back in June last year. The property was sold to them for more than R51 million.
Blok had initially planned to develop a pilot inclusionary-housing project, “Forty on L”, on Lion Street.
The Bo-Kaap residents are now back in court, where the matter is expected to be heard.
In the residents’ answering affidavit, Jacky Poking from the Bo-Kaap Ratepayers and Residents Association opposed Prime Point Properties’ application for an interdict.
“The applicant assumes that simply because the property has been sold, the applicant acquired all the rights in respect of the property.
“However, the application for the interdict has already been called in court, and it has reached the stage of litis contestatio (which is a civil proceeding in which controversial issues are established and submitted before a magistrate for examination of fact and judgment).
“There are, as a consequence, claims brought by Blok and claims which have been brought against Blok,” she said.
Poking said in her answering affidavit there was a fundamental legal disconnection between the transfer of the property and the transfer of the cause to action relating to the interdict.
“The applicant has not set out sufficient facts in order to show that the respondent will not be prejudiced,” Poking stated.