Narrow drive, wide divide
IT might not be on the scale of US President Donald Trump’s planned wall on the Mexican border, but Barbara Louw’s wall in Gordon’s Bay is also riling the neighbours.
Louw, who runs a guesthouse in the False Bay town, built her kneehigh wall to prevent her neighbour, Jacob Kirsten, using a driveway which he claims is common access.
Louw claims the wall is built on a 2m-wide strip of land she bought from the City of Cape Town in 2013 — but Kirsten and the city are now challenging the status of the land.
After a lengthy exchange of legal letters with Kirsten and the city, Louw let her bricks do the talking.
Louw said she had paid the city R12 000 for the strip of land abutting her upmarket guesthouse so that she could install a security gate.
In papers before court she said the land formed part of a municipal servitude of common passage originally intended to allow municipal staff access to a septic tank. The council approved the sale in 2004.
Problems began shortly afterwards when Kirsten applied to access the same piece of land to build a driveway for himself. Kirsten claimed he had a right of way over the land, despite it having been sold to Louw.
As a result, the city council has refused to finalise the transfer to Louw.
At the heart of the matter is disagreement over the historical status of the disputed land. Louw said it was classified as “common passage”, not “right of way”.
“We have proof that sometime in 2008 instruction was given to land surveyors from the municipality to call it a ‘right of way’,” Louw said. “Prior to that in all my plans it was a right of common passage — it’s there in my title deed.”
Whereas a right of way would allow Kirsten access, a municipal right of common passage would not, Louw said.
The city has refused to concede the point, and the matter, which has dragged through court for more than three years, is about to go to trial.
“Since I objected to this they [the city council] have made my life hell,” Louw said.
After she went to court, the council initiated its own case related to an alleged boundary infringement. Louw claims the move was not coincidental. “They are trying to intimidate me, hoping I will drop my case,” she said.
Mayoral committee member for planning Johan van der Merwe said: “There are two matters at hand, one pertaining to litigation regarding a servitude and the other pertaining to an enforcement matter. Both are complex and subject to legal process and the city prefers not to comment at this time. We record that neither matter is influenced by the other or by any extraneous or irregular considerations.”
Kirsten’s lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.