Judgment reserved in Marble Towers demolition dispute

May 22, 2026 19

The Johannesburg High Court has reserved judgment in the legal battle between the City of Johannesburg and Marble Towers over the planned demolition of allegedly unlawful structures at the Johannesburg CBD building.

Judge, Leicester Adams, heard arguments virtually on Friday before postponing the matter to next Wednesday for a written ruling.

“The hearing is now concluded. I just need to mull over what was said. I know the matter is urgent and the parties would like to have a decision sooner rather than later. But it is an important matter.”

The City of Johannesburg argued that the structures erected at Marble Towers were unlawful and posed a serious safety risk, saying it had issued several non-compliance notices dating back to 2022.

City legal representative, Mphati Lebakeng, told the court the central issue was whether the structures were lawful.

“The primary question that my Lord asked was, are their structures lawful? That’s the first question, because that becomes the primary inquiry.”

Lebakeng argued that once structures are deemed unlawful, the city is empowered to enforce its by-laws and that prior notice is not always required.

She cited previous deadly building fires and collapses in Johannesburg, saying the city could not ignore ongoing safety risks.

“If 10 people die because there’s a fire or because something wrong happens, the responsibility is placed on the city for failing to have enforced the bylaws that allow it to ensure compliance with its own laws.”

According to the city, Marble Towers had repeatedly failed to comply despite earlier undertakings to remedy the issues.

Lebakeng claimed the owners had instead expanded the allegedly unlawful structures and blocked emergency exits.

But Marble Towers’ lawyer, Reuben Maphutha, argued that the city could not proceed with demolitions without first obtaining a court order in terms of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act.

Maphutha conceded the structures did not yet have approved building plans but argued remediation remained possible and demolitions would therefore be premature.

He told the court the owners intended to resubmit plans to the revelant municipal department for consideration.

“It will not make sense… to then demolish not only in the absence of a court order, but in circumstances where remediation is possible.”

Maphutha further argued that the matter was urgent because the city had publicly indicated its intention to demolish the structures.

He also disputed the city’s safety concerns, pointing to a fire safety report attached to the owners’ court papers.

This comes after negotiations aimed at reaching a possible agreement between the city and the building’s owners collapsed.

The case forms part of the city’s broader crackdown on alleged by-law violations and unsafe structures in the Johannesburg CBD, with officials warning that safety risks at Marble Towers could lead to another disaster similar to the 2023 Usindiso building fire.

The matter was initially enrolled on an urgent basis after the city moved to demolish several allegedly illegal structures around the building. However, demolition efforts were halted following a last-minute interdict application brought by the owners, Goldenrod Group.

Kuningi oku la! The arguments by Marblw Towers aren’t even of substance. Udoti straight #MarbleTowersCityofJoburg https://t.co/c6rNtIASF5

— black sheep (@BabablacksheepK) May 22, 2026

#MarbelTowersvCityofJoburg #countryDuty

Matter is currently being heard in court .

Marbel Towers submissions:

– concedes that the building structures aren’t approved

– they intend to submit plans/ structures to the court

– City can’t demolition where they intend to…

— Tumi Sole (@tumisole) May 22, 2026