Masekoane and Another v Letsemeng Plaaslike Minisipaliteit and Another (A138/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 52 (18 March 2010)

Masekoane and Another v Letsemeng Plaaslike Minisipaliteit and Another (A138/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 52 (18 March 2010)

The court found that the appeal had become moot because the second applicant had resigned and no longer represented the first applicant on the council of the second respondent. As a result, any decision on appeal would have no practical effect or result. The court applied section 21A of the Supreme Court Act, which allows for dismissal of appeals that are academic or moot. The arguments advanced by the appellants regarding the interpretation of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act were withdrawn after it was shown that they were based on a misreading of the statute. The court further noted that the Constitution and the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act discourage...

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 52
Parties
Appellant: Kadimo Masekoane; Appellant: Die Xhariep Distriks-Munisipaliteit; Respondent: Die Letsemeng Plaaslike Munisipaliteit; Respondent: Mufi Jerry Molusi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 March 2010
Case Number
A138/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Confirmation of Interdict (rule Nisi)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as moot under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.
Judges
H.M. Musi, G.F. Wright, C. Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Interdict, Mootness, Local Government Structures Act, Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interdict Mootness Local Government Structures Act Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kadimo Masekoane

Appellant

Die Xhariep Distriks-Munisipaliteit

Appellant

Die Letsemeng Plaaslike Munisipaliteit

Respondent

Mufi Jerry Molusi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Confirmation of Interdict (rule Nisi)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal has any practical effect or result in light of the resignation of the second applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be dismissed as moot under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.
  3. 3 Whether the original appointment and replacement of the councillor were procedurally correct under the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appeal had become moot because the second applicant had resigned and no longer represented the first applicant on the council of the second respondent. As a result, any decision on appeal would have no practical effect or result. The court applied section 21A of the Supreme Court Act, which allows for dismissal of appeals that are academic or moot. The arguments advanced by the appellants regarding the interpretation of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act were withdrawn after it was shown that they were based on a misreading of the statute. The court further noted that the Constitution and the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act discourage...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as moot under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs against the respondents.