Appolus and Others v Naledi Local Municipality and Others (UM199/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 97 (6 June 2025)

Appolus and Others v Naledi Local Municipality and Others (UM199/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 97 (6 June 2025)

The court found that the respondents had complied with the requirements for prosecuting the section 18(4) appeal by filing the notice of appeal and corresponding with the Judge President's office, and that the appeal was pending. As a result, the execution of the judgments in question was suspended in terms of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] ZANWHC 97
Parties
Applicant: Thabo Appolus; Applicant: Cllr Lorato Setlhake; Applicant: Cllr Lebogang Jacobs; Applicant: Cllr Vuyiswa Morakile; Applicant: Nelson Mongale N.O; Respondent: Naledi Local Municipality; Respondent: Naledi Local Municipality Council; Respondent: Cllr PGC Gulane (Speaker of Council); Respondent: Cllr J Groep N.O (Mayor); Respondent: Mr Modisenyane Segapo N.O (Municipal Manager); Respondent: Ms Excinia Makgahlela; Respondent: MEC for Cooperative Governance Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, Northwest Province; Respondent: South African Local Government Association (SALGA); Respondent: Provincial Treasury: Northwest Province
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2025
Case Number
UM199/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Motion Roll After Initial Urgency Struck Off
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
J.T. Djaje
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Municipal Manager Appointment, Protected Disclosure Act, Disciplinary Proceedings, Section 18 Superior Courts Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Municipal Manager Appointment Protected Disclosure Act Disciplinary Proceedings Section 18 Superior Courts Act

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thabo Appolus

Applicant

Cllr Lorato Setlhake

Applicant

Cllr Lebogang Jacobs

Applicant

Cllr Vuyiswa Morakile

Applicant

Nelson Mongale N.O

Applicant

Naledi Local Municipality

Respondent

Naledi Local Municipality Council

Respondent

Cllr PGC Gulane (Speaker of Council)

Respondent

Cllr J Groep N.O (Mayor)

Respondent

Mr Modisenyane Segapo N.O (Municipal Manager)

Respondent

Ms Excinia Makgahlela

Respondent

MEC for Cooperative Governance Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, Northwest Province

Respondent

South African Local Government Association (SALGA)

Respondent

Provincial Treasury: Northwest Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Motion Roll After Initial Urgency Struck Off

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the court order dated 15 July 2024.
  2. 2 Whether the first applicant qualifies as a whistle blower under the Protected Disclosures Act.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary proceedings against the first applicant constitute an occupational detriment under the Protected Disclosures Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had complied with the requirements for prosecuting the section 18(4) appeal by filing the notice of appeal and corresponding with the Judge President's office, and that the appeal was pending. As a result, the execution of the judgments in question was suspended in terms of section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act, and the relief sought by the applicants could not be granted. Regarding the protected disclosure claim, the court held that the first applicant failed to establish a causal link between his disclosure and the disciplinary proceedings, which were based on absenteeism and not the alleged protected disclosure. Furthermore, the first applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the first to sixth respondents, including the costs of two counsel.