Mabaso and Another v Khumalo and Others (7663/19P) [2019] ZAKZPHC 71 (30 October 2019)

Mabaso and Another v Khumalo and Others (7663/19P) [2019] ZAKZPHC 71 (30 October 2019)

The court held that it is not appropriate to intervene in the internal political processes of the municipal council by directing how motions for the removal of the Speaker and Deputy Mayor should be handled. The principle of separation of powers precludes judicial interference in matters that are properly within the council's domain, such as the fitness of the Speaker and the conduct of council meetings. The applicants' complaints regarding the Speaker's conduct and the frustration of motions are matters for review proceedings, not for anticipatory mandatory interdicts. The urgency claimed by the applicants is not substantiated, as the pending proceedings already address the substantive...

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Maria Buyisile Mabaso; Applicant: Lawrence Dube; Respondent: Michael Khumalo; Respondent: Mncedisi Mapisa; Respondent: Elphas Dladla NO; Respondent: Abaqulusi Municipality; Respondent: Inkatha Freedom Party; Respondent: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: MEC for Co-operative Government and Traditional Affairs, KZN; Respondent: Awelihle Theron Shongwe; Respondent: The Speaker, Abaqulusi Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Case Number
7663/19P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought on Urgent Basis Prior to Scheduled Council Meeting
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed and all reserved costs.
Judges
Vahed
Legal Topics
Municipal Structures Act, Separation of Powers, Mandatory Interdict, Council Procedure, Recusal of Speaker
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Municipal Structures Act Separation of Powers Mandatory Interdict Council Procedure Recusal of Speaker

Case Brief

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maria Buyisile Mabaso

Applicant

Lawrence Dube

Applicant

Michael Khumalo

Respondent

Mncedisi Mapisa

Respondent

Elphas Dladla NO

Respondent

Abaqulusi Municipality

Respondent

Inkatha Freedom Party

Respondent

Democratic Alliance

Respondent

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

MEC for Co-operative Government and Traditional Affairs, KZN

Respondent

Awelihle Theron Shongwe

Respondent

The Speaker, Abaqulusi Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought on Urgent Basis Prior to Scheduled Council Meeting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should intervene to direct the conduct of a municipal council meeting regarding motions for removal of the Speaker and Deputy Mayor.
  2. 2 Whether the Speaker should be interdicted from presiding over the meeting where his own removal is to be debated and voted upon.
  3. 3 Whether the application is urgent and justifies judicial intervention prior to the outcome of pending proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it is not appropriate to intervene in the internal political processes of the municipal council by directing how motions for the removal of the Speaker and Deputy Mayor should be handled. The principle of separation of powers precludes judicial interference in matters that are properly within the council's domain, such as the fitness of the Speaker and the conduct of council meetings. The applicants' complaints regarding the Speaker's conduct and the frustration of motions are matters for review proceedings, not for anticipatory mandatory interdicts. The urgency claimed by the applicants is not substantiated, as the pending proceedings already address the substantive...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed and all reserved costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicants, including costs of two counsel where employed and all reserved costs.