South Africa Case Law

Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and 14 Others (2264/2024)

Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and 14 Others (2264/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 184 (20 June 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2264/2024

Judge

Daffue

The court found that Ngwathe Local Municipality is in persistent breach of its constitutional and statutory obligations, including failure to provide basic services, maintain a safe environment, and manage its finances. The evidence of contaminated water, sewage spills, financial insolvency, and poor governance was overwhelming and largely uncontested. The Provincial respondents failed to take mandatory steps under section 139 of the Constitution and the MFMA, despite clear jurisdictional facts requiring intervention. The court held that exceptional circumstances justified dissolution of the…

Source excerpt

• Municipal Dysfunction
• Mandatory Provincial Intervention
• Structural Interdict
• Service Delivery Failure
• Local Government Finance
• Declaratory Relief

Democratic Alliance v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (1623/2024)

Democratic Alliance v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (1623/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 338 (22 October 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1623/2024

Judge

Van Rhyn

High Court declared Matjhabeng Municipality in breach of constitutional duties and ordered provincial or national intervention, a recovery plan, and costs.

• Municipal Duties
• Financial Recovery Plan
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Cooperative Government
• Service Delivery Failure
• Structural Interdict

Mafube Business Forum and Others v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (6435/2022)

Mafube Business Forum and Others v Premier of the Free State Province and Others (6435/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 377 (3 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6435/2022

Judge

Molitsoane

The court found that while there was delay and lack of urgency in the Respondents' compliance with the two previous court orders, the evidence showed that steps were taken to comply, including the appointment of an intervention team, approval of a budget, initiation of a financial recovery plan, and procurement for emergency overflow ponds. The court held that the Applicants failed to prove wilful and mala fide non-compliance by the Respondents. Furthermore, the application for committal of the Premier was fatally defective due to lack of personal service and citation in his personal capacity…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Municipal Intervention
• Service Delivery Failure
• Sewage Spillage
• Financial Recovery Plan
• Constitutional Obligations