Melato v Masilonyane Local Municipality (2458/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 215 (12 July 2024)

Melato v Masilonyane Local Municipality (2458/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 215 (12 July 2024)

The court found that both acting appointments were made by the municipal council after consultation with the municipal manager, satisfying the requirements of section 56(1)(a) of the Municipal Systems Act. Although the MEC for Local Government raised objections regarding the applicant's qualifications, no steps were taken by the MEC within the statutory period to challenge or set aside the appointments. The respondent, not being the proper party under section 56(6), could not retrospectively challenge the validity of the appointments or seek repayment of the acting allowance. The High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the contractual claim for the acting allowance. The applicant...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 215
Parties
Applicant: Rapopi Melato; Respondent: Masilonyane Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2024
Case Number
2458/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Opposed Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Main application granted; counter-application dismissed.
Judges
Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Acting Allowance, Municipal Systems Act, Jurisdiction of High Court, Unlawful Appointment, Declaratory Relief
Labour Law Civil Procedure Administrative Law Acting Allowance Municipal Systems Act Jurisdiction of High Court Unlawful Appointment Declaratory Relief

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rapopi Melato

Applicant

Masilonyane Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Opposed Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's acting appointments as Director: Corporate Services were lawful for the periods in question.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is obliged to pay the applicant the acting allowance for the second acting appointment period.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding the acting allowance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both acting appointments were made by the municipal council after consultation with the municipal manager, satisfying the requirements of section 56(1)(a) of the Municipal Systems Act. Although the MEC for Local Government raised objections regarding the applicant's qualifications, no steps were taken by the MEC within the statutory period to challenge or set aside the appointments. The respondent, not being the proper party under section 56(6), could not retrospectively challenge the validity of the appointments or seek repayment of the acting allowance. The High Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the contractual claim for the acting allowance. The applicant...

Court Disposition

Main application granted; counter-application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicant's acting appointments as Director: Corporate Services for the periods 1 September 2020 to 30 November 2020 and 1 December 2020 to 28 February 2021 are declared lawful.
  • The respondent is directed to pay the acting allowance due and payable to the applicant for the period 1 December 2020 to 28 February 2021.