Marble Towers Case: Johannesburg High Court Draws the Line Between Enforcement and Due Process

In the heart of Johannesburg’s CBD, Marble Towers has become more than a prominent high-rise building. It has become the latest flashpoint in the city’s struggle to reclaim public spaces, enforce building safety regulations, and confront long-running non-compliance in the inner city.

On Thursday, 28 May 2026, the Johannesburg High Court ruled against the owners of Marble Towers after they approached the court urgently to stop the City of Johannesburg from acting against allegedly illegal structures at the property. The ruling did not hand the City an unrestricted power to demolish. Instead, it delivered a carefully balanced judgment: unlawful structures cannot be protected by the courts, but the municipality must still follow the correct legal process before demolition.

At the centre of the dispute is Goldenrod Group, the owner of Marble Towers, and a set of container units and informal trading structures attached to or surrounding the building. According to the court findings, these structures were built without approved plans and were found to violate building and fire safety regulations.

A Landmark Building Caught in an Inner-City Enforcement Drive

Marble Towers stands in the Johannesburg CBD, an area where the City has intensified enforcement against bylaw infringements, illegal trading, unsafe buildings, hijacked properties, illegal signage, waste management problems and deteriorating infrastructure.

The latest dispute followed what officials described as a high-impact service delivery operation in the inner city. Johannesburg Mayor Dada Morero, Members of the Mayoral Committee and city officials visited Small Street and Marble Towers as part of the broader campaign.

The operation was not presented as a symbolic exercise. It was aimed at removing illegal structures, restoring public access, improving safety and forcing property owners to comply with municipal regulations.

Morero said the City had also identified major arrears linked to the building.

“We have established that the building owes us R14 million in water, electricity, rates and taxes. So, we are acting. We have already cut off the water meter and are also disconnecting electricity to force the building to comply and pay,” he said.

That unpaid municipal services bill added another layer to a case already focused on building safety and legality.

Why Goldenrod Group Went to Court

Goldenrod Group approached the court on an urgent basis to prevent the City from demolishing, removing, dismantling or interfering with the structures at Marble Towers.

The dispute centred mainly on container units and informal trading structures that the City said were unlawful. The owners argued for urgent court protection, seeking an interim interdict that would stop the municipality from proceeding.

City officials, however, maintained that the structures were illegal and unsafe. The City’s position was that unlawfulness in and around Marble Towers had to be brought to an immediate end.

City of Johannesburg Group Legal representative Segala Malahlela said the municipality had agreed not to demolish immediately while the urgent matter was heard.

“We made an undertaking with the judge not to demolish anything, but to continue with our other law enforcement work. We will be in court again at around 10am to argue the matter,” he said at the site.

“They do not want us to remove the containers and shacks in and around Marble Towers and the High Court precinct, but the city’s view is that this illegality and unlawfulness must stop immediately,” he said.

The court therefore had to decide two questions at once: whether the owner was entitled to urgent protection, and whether the City could act immediately against the structures without further legal authorisation.

The Court’s Finding: No Shield for Illegal Structures

Judge Leicester Adams dismissed the application, finding that it lacked urgency and legal merit. The court found that the structures were unlawful and had been non-compliant for several years.

The judgment found that no building plans had ever been submitted or approved by the municipality for the contested structures, despite enforcement steps dating back several years.

“There can accordingly be little doubt that the structures in question are illegal and that the City is entitled to enforce compliance with the law,” Adams said in the judgment.

The court also heard that the City first initiated enforcement proceedings against the property in April 2022. It later issued multiple contravention notices instructing the company to remove illegal structures and submit building plans.

According to the judgment, Goldenrod Group ignored several municipal notices, including a directive issued in May 2025 requiring it to submit building plans within 21 days.

Adams also found that the company had failed to disclose the full enforcement history when bringing the urgent application.

“This breaches the duty of uberrima fides owed by an applicant in an application, especially one brought on an urgent basis,” the judge said.

The court further found that the urgency was self-created because the company had more than four years to regularise the structures.

The City Also Faced a Legal Limit

While the ruling was a major setback for Goldenrod Group, it was not a blank cheque for the City of Johannesburg.

The judge warned that the City could not simply demolish the structures without following due legal process. Demolition, the court said, required authorisation in terms of section 21 of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act.

That distinction is important. The court accepted that the structures were unlawful and that the City was entitled to enforce compliance. But it also made clear that enforcement must remain lawful, procedurally correct and properly authorised.

In practical terms, the City won the interdict battle, but it must still move through the correct legal channels before taking demolition action.

What the Court Ordered Goldenrod Group to Do

Instead of allowing immediate demolition, Judge Adams issued a structured order designed to force compliance within strict deadlines.

Goldenrod Group was ordered to stop all construction activities at the property immediately. It must also prevent occupation of structures identified by the City as non-compliant.

The owner was further ordered to seal off or secure the unsafe structures within 72 hours. Structures blocking municipal property and public pavements must be removed.

Goldenrod Group must also submit compliant building plans within 20 days.

The order goes beyond paperwork. The company was instructed to address fire safety defects, including emergency exits, fire detection systems, emergency lighting and evacuation procedures.

These requirements point to the central public safety concern in the case: the issue is not merely whether structures exist without paperwork, but whether they place occupants, traders, pedestrians, emergency workers and surrounding businesses at risk.

What Happens If the Owner Fails to Comply?

The court order creates a compliance pathway, but it also gives the City a route to act if Goldenrod Group fails to meet the deadlines.

After the compliance period, the City is entitled to inspect the property. If the owner does not comply with the order, the municipality may take further lawful enforcement action.

The court also directed the parties to engage in mediation if necessary. Either side may return to court if the order is not obeyed, mediation fails, or Goldenrod Group fails to obtain lawful approvals.

The applicant was also ordered to pay the City of Johannesburg’s legal costs, including counsel’s fees.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Marble Towers

The Marble Towers ruling speaks to a much larger challenge in Johannesburg’s inner city. Many buildings in the CBD sit at the intersection of commercial use, informal trading, municipal debt, public space pressure and safety regulation.

For residents, workers, commuters and businesses, the case raises basic questions: Who is responsible for keeping buildings safe? How quickly can the City act when laws are ignored? And how should enforcement be handled when public spaces are blocked or structures pose fire and safety risks?

The court’s answer was firm but balanced. Owners cannot rely on urgent litigation to protect unlawful activity, especially where public safety is involved. At the same time, municipalities must not bypass the law in the name of enforcement.

That balance may shape future action in Johannesburg’s CBD, particularly as the City continues operations against unsafe buildings, illegal construction and bylaw violations.

A Test Case for Johannesburg’s Inner-City Reset

The City has framed its inner-city operations as part of a campaign to restore law and order, improve public safety and reclaim public spaces.

Morero’s spokesperson, Khathutshelo Mulaudzi, said the operation formed part of ongoing efforts to make the CBD safer and more functional.

“The operation forms part of the city’s broader programme to tackle bylaw infringements, illegal trading, unsafe and hijacked buildings, illegal signage, waste management challenges and deteriorating infrastructure in the inner city.”

“Through this intervention, the city aims to ensure safer, cleaner and more accessible public spaces for residents, businesses, commuters and visitors,” she added.

The Marble Towers judgment now gives the City a legal framework to proceed, but it also places a clear obligation on officials to follow proper authorisation procedures.

Conclusion: A Court Order With Wider Consequences

The Johannesburg High Court’s ruling on Marble Towers is not only about one building or a group of container structures. It is about the legal limits of urban enforcement, the responsibilities of property owners and the urgent need to protect public safety in Johannesburg’s CBD.

Goldenrod Group has been ordered to stop construction, secure unsafe structures, clear blocked public spaces and submit proper building plans. The City, meanwhile, has been reminded that even when it is enforcing the law, it must do so through lawful procedures.

For Johannesburg, the case may become a reference point in future disputes over unsafe buildings, informal structures and inner-city renewal. It shows that the courts are prepared to support compliance enforcement — but not shortcuts.

The next phase will depend on whether Goldenrod Group meets the court’s deadlines. If it does not, the City may return to lawful enforcement action, armed with a judgment that clearly recognises the illegality of the structures while insisting that due process still matters.