While the almost decade-long legal wrangle between the Nelson Mandela Bay municipality and the owners of spa and hotel Georgiou’s has been finalised, a war of words continues, with the hotel owner saying the ball is firmly in his court while officials say they will not tolerate unlawful conduct.
The Georgiou’s owner has battled the metro in and out of court for years for the right to run the hotel and spa on an erf which is zoned as residential.
Phillip Georgiou, owner of Georgiou International, said he remained undecided whether to file a final damages claim against the municipality for costs incurred during the legal wrangle.
But city manager Johann Mettler said on Friday the municipality would not hesitate to act against Georgiou’s if there was further unlawful conduct.
Mettler added that the municipality was investigating whether the family was still operating the spa on a different property after the Grahamstown High Court ruled in January that Philip’s wife Yvette could not operate the guesthouse and spa business on the same erf as their Kragga Kamma Road home.
Yvette has defiantly operated the spa for over six years in the face of the municipality’s refusal to let her do so and the later acquisition of an interdict prohibiting her from doing so.
She first applied in 2009 to use her home, which is zoned as residential, as a guesthouse and spa. When the metro inspected the premises it found she was already operating both without permission.
Despite this, the metro gave her special consent to operate as a guesthouse, but only on condition she stopped operating the spa and that only four guest suites were permitted.
Despite being put on terms on several occasions, she continued to operate both.
The Georgiou family also expanded the premises.
The metro finally successfully applied to the Port Elizabeth High Court to order the family to demolish some of the extensions for which there were no building plans. According to court papers these include a private gym, chapel, patio and sun room.Yvette Georgiou, however, said the municipal building inspectors were unsure as to what exactly constituted the four structures and eventually demolished little more than a carport in addition to the so-called gym and chapel which, she said, was the same structure.
Despite the fact that the metro had refused consent to operate the spa and had made its consent to operating the guesthouse subject to closing the spa, the Georgious claimed on Tuesday they could lawfully do both.
“The funny thing is . . . everything [the structures] they [the municipality] are talking about is insignificant [to the business brand] so what did they gain? There was never an order that said we could not operate the spa,” Philip Georgiou said.
“The order said because of the zoning scheme we could not operate the accommodation and spa together, we needed to separate them. So everything is still operating but under separate zonings and consents.”
Georgiou said the “demolishing” had not affected their business in any way as the brand was more successful than ever, having recently secured several international bookings for its 10-year anniversary in August.
“All of those buildings were on the original building plan for our erf. However, the municipality claimed they had misplaced the original building plans, which our attorney managed to find at their water department,” he said.
“And then Mettler said that they might have found the papers all of a sudden . . . But the so-called demolishing of the buildings was little more than the removal of three walls and a car park which were over the building boundary.
“We have continually complied with the municipality and their requests, but they continue to drag this matter before court at the expense of the city’s ratepayers. We comply, then they come with another thing to contest. We have tried to settle the matter out of court but they refuse. It seems to be a money-making exercise for them.” However Mettler disagreed, saying Philip was being disingenuous in his statement to Weekend Post.
“This has nothing to do with a money-making exercise and everything to do with the unlawful conduct of Phillip and Yvette Georgiou . . . The municipality is statutorily obligated to enforce its zoning scheme regulations and Building Act . . .
“The court has made no such finding [the recovery of building plans] and has in fact attached Phillip Georgiou as a respondent to the proceedings and ordered the Georgious to pay costs on an attorney client scale,” Mettler said.
“The municipality has successfully opposed Georgiou numerous court applications with costs orders . . . The settlement proposed by Georgiou’s was that the municipality agree that she [Yvette] had complied with all aspects of the court order.
“This was not the case at the time and the municipality could not agree to act in contempt of court . . . The court proceedings in respect of unlawful buildings is finalised but if there is further unlawful conduct the municipality will not hesitate to act.”
Neither the municipality nor the Georgiou provided the final cost for the protracted legal battle.