Raliphada v Makhado Municipality and Others (8015/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 22; [2024] 2 All SA 490 (LP); [2024] 6 BLLR 626 (LP) (6 February 2024)

Raliphada v Makhado Municipality and Others (8015/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 22; [2024] 2 All SA 490 (LP); [2024] 6 BLLR 626 (LP) (6 February 2024)

The High Court has jurisdiction to review the Council's decision to appoint the Chief Financial Officer of Makhado Municipality. The applicant's complaint is not limited to unfair discrimination but centers on the Council's failure to implement the Selection Panel's recommendation without rational explanation, constituting administrative action. The Council's decision was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, as it disregarded the Selection Panel's clear recommendation of the applicant, who was the highest scoring candidate and found competent. The Council did not provide reasons for bypassing the applicant, and the alleged lack of NQF 8 qualification did not justify the...

Citation
[2024] ZALMPPHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Raliphada Ndiambani Godfrey; Respondent: Makhado Municipality; Respondent: Council: Makhado Municipality; Respondent: Speaker of Council: Makhado Municipality; Respondent: Chief Whip of Council: Makhado Municipality; Respondent: Mayor: Makhado Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: Makhado Municipality; Respondent: MEC: COGTA Limpopo Province; Respondent: Thangavhuelelo M; Respondent: Nephawe LT; Respondent: SAMWU: Makhado Branch; Respondent: IMATU: Makhado Branch
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2024
Case Number
8015/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Merits Determination of Part B (review) Following Interim Interdict in Part a
Outcome
Application for review succeeds. The Council's appointment of the eighth respondent as CFO is declared unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, and is set aside.
Judges
Sikhwari
Legal Topics
Municipal Systems Act, Appointment of Senior Managers, Jurisdiction of High Court, Employment Equity Act, Procedural Fairness, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Labour Law Municipal Systems Act Appointment of Senior Managers Jurisdiction of High Court Employment Equity Act Procedural Fairness Review of Administrative Action

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raliphada Ndiambani Godfrey

Applicant

Makhado Municipality

Respondent

Council: Makhado Municipality

Respondent

Speaker of Council: Makhado Municipality

Respondent

Chief Whip of Council: Makhado Municipality

Respondent

Mayor: Makhado Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: Makhado Municipality

Respondent

MEC: COGTA Limpopo Province

Respondent

Thangavhuelelo M

Respondent

Nephawe LT

Respondent

SAMWU: Makhado Branch

Respondent

IMATU: Makhado Branch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Merits Determination of Part B (review) Following Interim Interdict in Part a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review the appointment of the Chief Financial Officer of Makhado Municipality?
  2. 2 Is the decision of the Council to appoint the eighth respondent and not the applicant subject to review under PAJA as administrative action?
  3. 3 Was the Council's disregard of the Selection Panel's recommendation lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair?

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction to review the Council's decision to appoint the Chief Financial Officer of Makhado Municipality. The applicant's complaint is not limited to unfair discrimination but centers on the Council's failure to implement the Selection Panel's recommendation without rational explanation, constituting administrative action. The Council's decision was unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, as it disregarded the Selection Panel's clear recommendation of the applicant, who was the highest scoring candidate and found competent. The Council did not provide reasons for bypassing the applicant, and the alleged lack of NQF 8 qualification did not justify the...

Court Disposition

Application for review succeeds. The Council's appointment of the eighth respondent as CFO is declared unlawful, unreasonable, and procedurally unfair, and is set aside.

Orders

  • Condonation for late filing of answering affidavit by the first to sixth respondents is granted.
  • The point in limine on lack of jurisdiction is dismissed.