Malema and Another v Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality and Others (UM68/2021) [2021] ZANWHC 59 (20 May 2021)

Malema and Another v Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality and Others (UM68/2021) [2021] ZANWHC 59 (20 May 2021)

The court found that the suspensions of the applicants were unlawful and invalid, as they were effected in breach of legislative and policy requirements, specifically regulation 6 of the Disciplinary Regulations. The acting municipal manager who effected the suspensions was not lawfully appointed under s 54A of the Municipal Systems Act, rendering his actions ultra vires and null and void. The respondents failed to demonstrate any factual basis for the urgency or necessity of the suspensions, and their justifications were found to be contrived and unsupported by evidence. The suspensions were not rationally connected to the alleged purpose of protecting investigations, especially as the...

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 59
Parties
Applicant: Lebuku Charles Malema; Applicant: Sehole Sekhoane; Respondent: Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality; Respondent: Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipal Council; Respondent: Cllr Lerato V Setlhake (Speaker); Respondent: Cllr Kgalalelo Sereko (Mayor); Respondent: Teko Gaanakgomo (Acting Municipal Manager); Respondent: Cllr Boitumelo Mahlangu; Respondent: The MEC for Cooperative Governance Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, North West Province
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 May 2021
Case Number
UM68/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; suspensions set aside; costs awarded against first to fifth respondents; application against seventh respondent dismissed.
Judges
Makoti
Legal Topics
Precautionary Suspension, Legality of Administrative Action, Municipal Manager Appointment, Rule of Law, Urgent Interdict, Costs Against State
Administrative Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Precautionary Suspension Legality of Administrative Action Municipal Manager Appointment Rule of Law Urgent Interdict +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebuku Charles Malema

Applicant

Sehole Sekhoane

Applicant

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality

Respondent

Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipal Council

Respondent

Cllr Lerato V Setlhake (Speaker)

Respondent

Cllr Kgalalelo Sereko (Mayor)

Respondent

Teko Gaanakgomo (Acting Municipal Manager)

Respondent

Cllr Boitumelo Mahlangu

Respondent

The MEC for Cooperative Governance Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs, North West Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' suspensions were lawful and complied with legislative and policy prescripts.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the acting municipal manager was valid under s 54A of the Municipal Systems Act.
  3. 3 Whether the suspensions were rationally connected to the purpose for which they were invoked.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suspensions of the applicants were unlawful and invalid, as they were effected in breach of legislative and policy requirements, specifically regulation 6 of the Disciplinary Regulations. The acting municipal manager who effected the suspensions was not lawfully appointed under s 54A of the Municipal Systems Act, rendering his actions ultra vires and null and void. The respondents failed to demonstrate any factual basis for the urgency or necessity of the suspensions, and their justifications were found to be contrived and unsupported by evidence. The suspensions were not rationally connected to the alleged purpose of protecting investigations, especially as the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; suspensions set aside; costs awarded against first to fifth respondents; application against seventh respondent dismissed.

Orders

  • Non-compliance with rules relating to service and filing is condoned; matter heard as urgent under Rule 6(12).
  • Resolution No. 102/2020/21 passed by the Second Respondent is declared unlawful and invalid and set aside.