The applicants were residential neighbours of the respondent, the runner of a commercial business. The applicants meant that there had been a residential morcellement where the owners, their heirs and successors were bound to respect certain conditions including a prohibition of certain constructions on their property.
The applicants stated that the respondent had acted in breach of the covenants on several occasions and requested an injunction restraining the respondent from operating his commercial building and adding further constructions and pulling down illegal constructions. They also requested that relevant authorities should be required to withdraw licences issued contrary to the contract.
The Court first stated that the operation in itself was not illegal as it had all necessary permits. The Court also stated that an EIA licence was not necessary for this kind of activity.
However, the Court concluded that the respondent was in flagrant breach of the conditions of the morcellement and a few of the permits and licences given. The Court also criticised several authorities for allowing the illegal actions, especially the Ministry of Environment.
The Court found that the balance of convenience was on the side of the applicants whose concerns were legal, environmental, human, social and aesthetic. Therefore it in all essentiality made the orders requested by the applicants.