Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Bojosinyane v Maroga and Others (UM197/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 221; [2024] 4 All SA 378 (NWM) (23 August 2024)
Full Court appeal struck from the roll for procedural non-compliance and mootness, with costs awarded against the appellant.
Monareng v Dr JS Moroka Municipality (JA46/22) [2024] ZALAC 35; [2024] 10 BLLR 1029 (LAC); (2024) 45 ILJ 2689 (LAC) (3 July 2024)
The Labour Appeal Court found that the Municipality failed to provide a valid council resolution and power of attorney authorising opposition to the appeal and the application for further evidence, as required by Rule 6(2) of the Labour Appeal Court Rules. Consequently, the matter proceeded unopposed. The Court admitted further evidence showing that the section 139(1)(b) intervention ended on 31 March 2021, which meant Mr Mhlanga no longer had authority as Administrator when he refused to consent to the withdrawal of Mr Monareng's resignation. The refusal was therefore ultra vires and void. T…
Source excerpt
Abaqulusi Local Municipality and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (3003/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 97 (15 September 2023)
The High Court set aside KwaZulu-Natal’s decision to retain a section 139 intervention in Abaqulusi Municipality, finding it unconstitutional, invalid, and not justly suspendable.
MEC for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal and Another v Mtubatuba Local Municipality and Others (D2562/2023) [2023] ZAKZDHC 56 (15 August 2023)
The court found that the respondents' conduct in preventing the second applicant from assuming his duties as ministerial representative at the Mtubatuba Local Municipality constituted unlawful self-help and offended the rule of law. The dispute did not fall under Chapter 4 of the Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act because it related to an intervention under section 139 of the Constitution. The appointment of the second applicant was valid and extended, and the respondents had no lawful basis to obstruct him. The applicants were entitled to approach the court for relief, and the respond…
Source excerpt
Mothamaha and Another v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs: Free State (LTA 23/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 283 (25 October 2022)
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the municipal appointments and salary contracts were unlawful, irregular, and unsupported by the required approvals.
Mafube Business Forum and Another v Mafube Local Municipality and Others (1969/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 86 (28 April 2022)
The court found that the Mafube Local Municipality and associated respondents are in persistent breach of their constitutional and legislative obligations to provide basic services and meet financial commitments. The provincial executive's intervention under section 139(1)(b) failed to resolve the Municipality's crises, and the jurisdictional facts for mandatory provincial intervention under section 139(4) and (5) are present and have been for some time. However, the court held that national intervention under section 139(7) is only permissible after the province has implemented mandatory int…
Source excerpt
Premier of the North West Province and Others v Kagisano Molopo Local Municipality and Others (CIV APP FB 01/2020) [2022] ZANWHC 7 (10 March 2022)
The Full Bench held that the fact that the North West Provincial Government was placed under administration by the national government in terms of section 100 of the Constitution did not divest it of its constitutional powers to intervene in municipalities under section 139(1)(b). Section 100 does not constitute a complete takeover by the national government, but rather enables co-governance and support to ensure compliance with constitutional obligations. The provincial government retains oversight powers over local government, and its executive and administrative structures remain in place.…
Source excerpt
Afriforum NPC v Premier, Gauteng Province and Others (1000/2020) [2021] ZASCA 185 (24 December 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an administrator appointed under section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution is empowered to approve a municipal budget. The administrator acts as the legal substitute for the municipal council and must ensure the continued functioning of the municipality, which necessitates budget approval. The Court found that budget approval is an executive function, not a legislative one, and that section 139(4) does not preclude an administrator from approving a budget when appointed under section 139(1)(c). The appellant's reliance on Mnquma and Fedsure was misplaced, as…
Source excerpt
Speaker: OR Tambo District Municipality and Others v Premier of the Eastern Cape and Others (3809/2021) [2021] ZAECMHC 36 (25 October 2021)
The court found that the decision to dissolve the OR Tambo District Municipal Council under section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution was irrational and not supported by the required factual basis of ongoing failure. The respondents failed to contest the review application on its merits and did not provide evidence to justify the dissolution. The imminent local government elections rendered the dissolution moot, and the functus officio doctrine prevented the Provincial Executive Council from rescinding the decision without a court order. In the contempt application, the MEC did not provide suffic…
Source excerpt
MEC for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Free State v Metsimaholo Local Municipality and Others (1159/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 251 (10 December 2020)
The court found that the respondents failed to raise the issue of the Speaker's powers in their pleadings and that their arguments in the application for leave to appeal were largely a repetition of those previously made. The authority of Mr. Manele was not properly before the court, and there was no review application regarding his appointment. The test for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act requires more than a mere possibility of success; the applicant must show reasonable prospects. The respondents did not meet this threshold, and the court was not convinced that…
Source excerpt
Explore more
