Durban – A high court interdict, restraining the owners of a city building from erecting “wrap-around” advertisements on it, has been hailed as a victory for tenants’ rights.
The eThekwini Municipality had launched a Durban High Court application against the owner of Tasnim Building for violating municipal by-laws by erecting billboards and wrap-around adverts on the building in Bertha Mkhize (Victoria) Street without its authority.
The application was unopposed on Monday which led to the order being granted.
Residents of the building had complained that the wrap-around adverts on the building had restricted ventilation into their homes.
Sayed Iqbal Mohamed, chairman of the Organisation of Civic Rights (OCR), whose organisation filed supporting affidavits in the matter, said: “The order is a great victory for the tenants who were victims all these years and did not know where to go for help."
Tenants took the owners of the Tasnim Centre to court over the advertisements, which they claim blocks the flow of fresh air to their flats.
“We are happy that the order was granted and that from now on the occupants of Tasnim Building can be assured that their rights are protected.”
In 2015, unauthorised advertising for a mainstream bank was erected and wrapped around the building.
A year later, the building again had an illegal wrap-around advert for a fast food franchise.
The occupants of the building, which is used both for office and residential purposes, approached the OCR to intervene in the matter.
They complained about the lack of ventilation within the building and the health risks related to these wrap-around adverts.
The residents said that the advertisement blocked their views and stretched over the windows, preventing them from being opened to allow fresh air to enter the building.
The OCR approached the municipality to intervene and upon investigation, found that the building owner was violating the city’s legislation and by-laws by using outdoor advertising wraps around the building.
The municipality argued in court papers that the owner appeared to be soliciting outdoor advertising which infringed on the occupants’ rights to enjoy the building and the view.
The city said that the owner should take responsibility for the activities conducted on their property.
The order declared that all outdoor advertising erected on the building without the city’s permission was unlawful.
It stated that the owner was restrained from erecting outdoor advertising without written permission from the municipality and instructed to remove the advertising.
Although the advertising was removed after the complaints and articles published in the Daily News last year, the interdict was granted to ensure that the offence, which had been ongoing since 2012, did not recur.