Molatseli v Speaker: Dihlabeng Local Municipality and Others (1041/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 277 (10 October 2022)
The court found that the meeting of 9 February 2022 convened by the Mayor was unlawful, and all resolutions taken at that meeting, including the appointment of the Fifth Respondent as Acting Municipal Manager and the placement of the applicant on special leave, were invalid and must be set aside. The applicant,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAFSHC 277
- Parties
- Applicant: B P Molatseli; Respondent: Speaker: Dihlabeng Local Municipality; Respondent: Dihlabeng Local Municipality; Respondent: Executive Mayor: Dihlabeng Local Municipality; Respondent: MEC: Free State Provincial Government: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: M A B Mosima
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 October 2022
- Case Number
- 1041/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Final Judgment on Opposed Review Application Following Interim Relief
- Outcome
- The council meeting of 9 February 2022 and all decisions taken thereat are reviewed and set aside. Each party shall bear their own costs for both the interim and review proceedings.
- Judges
- P E Molitsoane, J P Daffue
- Legal Topics
- Municipal Manager Appointment, Council Meeting Validity, Costs Award Discretion, Non Joinder, Municipal Structures Act
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
B P Molatseli
Applicant
Speaker: Dihlabeng Local Municipality
Respondent
Dihlabeng Local Municipality
Respondent
Executive Mayor: Dihlabeng Local Municipality
Respondent
MEC: Free State Provincial Government: Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs
Respondent
M A B Mosima
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Opposed Review Application Following Interim Relief
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the council meeting of 9 February 2022 convened by the Mayor was lawful.
- 2 Whether the resolutions taken at the impugned meeting should be reviewed and set aside.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs against the Municipality.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the meeting of 9 February 2022 convened by the Mayor was unlawful, and all resolutions taken at that meeting, including the appointment of the Fifth Respondent as Acting Municipal Manager and the placement of the applicant on special leave, were invalid and must be set aside. The applicant, although successful on the merits, acted in conflict by depriving the Municipality of legal representation and failed to arrange for the Council to decide on further legal steps, thereby acting mala fide. The court held that the applicant is not entitled to costs against the Municipality. The Mayor and Fifth Respondent did not act in their personal capacities but as part of the...
Court Disposition
The council meeting of 9 February 2022 and all decisions taken thereat are reviewed and set aside. Each party shall bear their own costs for both the interim and review proceedings.
Orders
- The council meeting of 9 February 2022 which commenced at 12h00 and all decisions taken thereat are reviewed and set aside.
- Each party shall bear their own costs in respect of Part A of the proceedings as well as the further proceedings pertaining to the review application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment