If you’ve spent any time on X over the past few weeks, you’ve probably seen Johannesburg mayor Dada Morero and various commentators locked in a public battle over Marble Towers in Johannesburg.
Technically, it’s a dispute about a building in Johannesburg’s CBD. In reality, it raises many more questions about how cities enforce the rules governing the built environment.
For those who haven’t been following every court filing, here’s the basic version.
The owners of Marble Towers approached the court seeking an urgent interdict against the City of Johannesburg. They argued that the city was threatening to demolish structures on the property without following the proper legal process.
They wanted the court to stop any demolition, prevent officials from entering the site for that purpose and compel the city to hand over reports and documents relating to its enforcement actions.
The city, on the other hand, argued that the structures in question were illegal because they had been erected without approved building plans. The city said notices had been issued over several years, compliance opportunities had been provided and the owners had failed to address the issues. The city also raised concerns about fire safety, blocked emergency exits and public risk.
Last week, the court handed down its decision. It found that the structures were indeed illegal because there were no approved building plans. It dismissed the urgent application, ruled that the owners had failed to establish a basis for an interim interdict and confirmed the city’s right to enforce building regulations and fire safety laws.
Importantly, however, the court also made it clear that the city cannot arrive with bulldozers and start demolishing structures.
Proper legal procedures needed to be followed.
The owners have been given an opportunity to regularise the structures, submit compliant plans, address fire safety concerns and secure the site.
On paper that might sound like a straightforward victory for the city. But Marble Towers is merely the latest pothole in a road Johannesburg has been travelling on for years.
Anyone who has spent time in Johannesburg’s CBD knows that unauthorised building alterations, illegal structures, safety violations and neglected compliance requirements are hardly unique to one specific property.
Johannesburg has spent years grappling with hundreds of unsafe, illegally occupied, hijacked or non-compliant buildings across the inner city.
Depending on which official estimate is used, the number ranges from more than 180 active cases to well over 500 affected properties.
What nobody disputes is that the problem extends far beyond a single building.
Enforcement in many South African cities often happens in bursts. Problems are ignored for years, notices are issued, deadlines come and go and then eventually a crisis forces action. It’s almost performative and ironically, the lights, camera and action take centre stage right around election time.
By the time officials intervene, tensions are high because owners, tenants, businesses and investors have often operated under the assumption that nothing would ever happen.
If the city fails to enforce regulations consistently, it sends a message that the rules are optional.
That uncertainty is the norm. If it enforces them selectively or only after years of inaction, it creates a different problem.
Property owners begin questioning where they stand, investors worry about regulatory risk and residents wonder why dangerous conditions were allowed to persist in the first place. Neither scenario is good for a city trying to attract investment.
Then there is another issue entirely outside all the legal arguments —building regulations. They exist for a reason. Most people think only about fire exits, occupancy limits, structural compliance and approved plans when something goes wrong. But every regulation is usually written in response to a disaster that happened somewhere, at some point.
When authorities raise concerns about blocked fire escapes or non-compliant structures, it’s not just about protecting paperwork; it’s about preventing tragedies.
The challenge for Johannesburg is that enforcement alone does not build confidence. Confidence is built on consistency. And consistency is something Johannesburg has lacked for many years.
Investors need to know that the same rules apply to everyone. Residents need to know that safety concerns will be addressed before they become emergencies. Property owners need to know that compliance requirements are predictable, transparent and fairly applied. This is what ultimately makes cities work.
The Marble Towers judgment might have settled one legal dispute but it leaves Johannesburg with a bigger and more daunting task.
The city might have won this time but will this mark the beginning of more consistent governance?
We are as used to striking successful headlines as we are to seeing them fade — until the next building lands up in court.
If unlawful structures, safety concerns and compliance failures can remain unresolved for years before action is taken, then Marble Towers is not an exception.
It’s a symptom of a disease that South African cities like Johannesburg have been treating with painkillers instead of a cure.
Unauthorised building alterations, illegal structures, safety violations and neglected compliance requirements are hardly unique
to one property in Johannesburg’s city centre
