Tongaat Mall collapse: moment of truth

The Tongaat Mall soon after part of the building collapsed on November 19, 2013. Photo: Neil Powell/AP

The Tongaat Mall soon after part of the building collapsed on November 19, 2013. Photo: Neil Powell/AP

Published Mar 30, 2015

Share

Durban - The Department of Labour’s commission of enquiry into the cause of the partial collapse of the Tongaat Mall has ended. Now, it will send its recommendations to the National Prosecuting Authority in the next 60 days.

Its report, to be compiled by inquiry chairman Phumudzo Maphaha and his co-presiding officers, Lenny Samuel and Sandile Kubheka, would only be made public should the NPA decide to prosecute.

The partial collapse during construction of the mall in November 2013, left two workers dead and 29 injured. Final arguments, from all parties involved, were heard on Friday, drawing the inquiry to a close.

While the municipality asked the commission to consider demolishing the structure and for the mall developer to start afresh with applying for approval of its building plans, the design engineer and the contractor again placed blame on the other.

Advocate Ian Topping, SC, acting for the municipality, focused on the issues relating to the failure of the property owner, Rectangle Property Investment, to comply with the provisions of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, as well as the high court orders.

An application was brought by the municipality last year to hold Rectangle Property and its sole director, Ravi Jagadasan, in contempt of court for ignoring interdict orders granted in 2013 by the high court to stop work at the mall.

The city had applied for the interdict because it was concerned about safety, because the company had no approval to begin work on its R208 million development, and no approved building plans.

The interim interdict was granted in September 2013 and the order was made final in November, five days before part of the mall collapsed.

Topping said the final order had directed that if Rectangle did not apply for building plan approval, they had to demolish the entire structure, irrespective of whether or not it was sound.

A high court order, granted in December, 2014, interdicts Rectangle from construction on the property until it obtains municipal approval for the proposed building works.

Topping argued that Rectangle Property committed a crime and that non-compliance could not be condoned. He asked the commission to consider all this information when it releases the property back to Rectangle at the end of these proceedings.

Design engineer André Ballack’s attorney, Richard Hoal, argued the collapse was due to contractor Gralio Precast’s negligence, and failure to comply with its obligations in terms of regulations.

He said the collapse occur-red because of under-strength concrete present in the columns that collapsed or due to the lack of reinforcing in beam 7. Tests had found that some of the concrete used was less than a third of the required standard strength of 30 megapascals (mPa).

Beam 7, and two columns, were identified as the three possible causes.

Hoal argued that beam 7 failed first and that Ballack had not authorised the pour on beam 7, saying there was no request to inspect it when reinforcing was made.

Hoal said it was common cause that Gralio failed to construct the mall in accordance with the design.

He argued the cause of the collapse was due to:

* Gralio’s failure in hiring adequately qualified and competent supervisors on site.

* Gralio not supervising or approving any work undertaken by subcontractors.

* Gralio relying on the performance of subcontractors and their hope Ballack, during his ad hoc inspections, would pick up any discrepancies.

Hoal blamed Gralio for failing to appoint Ballack to perform any construction monitoring service.

Advocate Saleem Khan, acting for Rectangle and Gralio, said Gralio’s chief executive, Jay Singh, repeatedly told Ballack not to take any risks in the self-funded project. He argued that in Gralio hiring a qualified and competent professional team, it was absolved of all responsibilities.

“Jay Singh set in place all the checks and balances that were good for previous projects. The only difference here is that a different engineer was used,” he said.

 

Khan argued that several engineers had testified saying the concrete mix made no difference to the collapse.

He said Singh relied on Ballack for quality control, reinforcing inspection and certifying structural stability compliance on completion.

Related Topics: