Naledi Local Municipality and Others v Appolus and Others (122/2024) [2025] ZASCA 171 (14 November 2025)

Case Note

Naledi Local Municipality and Others v Thabo Appolus and Others
Supreme Court of Appeal case no: 122/2024
Neutral citation: Naledi Local Municipality and Others v Appolus and Others (122/2024) [2025] ZASCA 171
Date: 14 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable primarily due to its implications concerning the governance of local municipalities under South African law, particularly regarding the interpretative issues surrounding the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. The Supreme Court of Appeal had to clarify the legality of the process leading to the appointment of a Municipal Manager, emphasizing the principle of legality—a fundamental tenet that constrains public officials to act within legal boundaries. The ruling reinforces the scrutiny applied to local government actions, promoting accountability and ensuring that municipal processes follow the correct legal procedures.

The decision serves as a precedent regarding the rights of municipal councillors and employees to seek redress in circumstances where organizational processes may reflect impropriety. It broadens the understanding of who has the standing to challenge public appointments within municipal governance, thereby influencing future conflicts within local government structures.

Cases Cited

• Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal v Nkandla Local Municipality and Others [2021] ZACC 46; (2022) 43 ILJ 505 (CC)
• Notyawa v Makana Municipality [2019] ZACC 43; (2020) 41 ILJ 1069 (CC); 2020 (2) BCLR 136 (CC); [2020] 4 BLLR 337 (CC)
• Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA and Another: In re Ex parte President of the Republic of South Africa and Others 2000 (2) SA 674 (CC); 2000 (3) BCLR 241 (CC)
• Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Vresthena (Pty) Ltd and Others [2023] ZASCA 104; 2023 (6) SA 434 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000
• Local Government: Regulations on Appointment and Conditions of Employment of Senior Managers

Rules of Court Cited

• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, particularly section 18 related to enforcement of appeal orders.

HEADNOTE

Summary

This appeal considered the legality of the appointment of Mr. Modisenyane Segapo as Municipal Manager by the Naledi Local Municipality, after his appointment was set aside by the North West Division of the High Court due to procedural irregularities in the recruitment process. The Supreme Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's ruling, upholding the principles of legality in municipal governance and emphasizing the role of public scrutiny in the appointment of public officials.

Key Issues

The principal legal issues addressed in the case included:

1. The legality of the Municipal Manager's appointment under the Municipal Systems Act.
2. The standing of municipal employees and councillors to challenge the recruitment process.
3. Whether the grounds established for review of the appointment were sufficient, considering administrative law principles.

Held

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the appointment of Mr. Segapo was invalid due to significant procedural irregularities in the recruitment process. The court ruled that the appellant's interpretation of the relevant sections of the Municipal Systems Act was incorrect and that the respondents provided adequate grounds for their challenge, thus affirming their standing in the matter.

THE FACTS

The dispute arose from the urgent application made by the first to fourth respondents against the appointment of Mr. Modisenyane Segapo as Municipal Manager of the Naledi Local Municipality. The appointment followed a recruitment process that allegedly breached several regulations governing municipal appointments. Mr. Segapo had previously served as Municipal Manager, with his most recent recruitment occurring after the Council declared a vacancy in October 2022. However, significant irregularities, including the alleged conflict of interest due to the Mayor's involvement in the review panel, highlighted concerns about the legitimacy of the appointment.

The recruitment process was marred by disputes regarding transparency, with respondents claiming procedural missteps and conflicts of interest, which were dismissed by the appellants as mere speculation. They contended that these issues were addressed adequately, but the High Court ultimately decided to nullify the appointment based on these irregularities.

THE ISSUES

The Supreme Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the respondents had appropriately established grounds for the review of Mr. Segapo's appointment. More specifically, the court evaluated the interpretation of the relevant sections of the Municipal Systems Act regarding the appointment processes and the standing of the respondents to bring forth their challenge. Additionally, the issue of whether the recruitment process adhered to legal and regulatory requirements under municipal law was pivotal to the court's deliberations.

ANALYSIS

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the inherent legal framework governing the appointment of Municipal Managers as articulated in the Municipal Systems Act. The interpretation of sections 54A(7) to (10) was critical, as they delineated the responsibilities of the Council to report to the MEC for local government regarding appointments. The court ruled that the respondents were within their rights to challenge the legality of the appointment, countering the appellants' claims that such challenges were exclusive to the MEC.

The analysis extended to the procedural aspects of the recruitment, focusing on irregularities that compromised the integrity of the process. Allegations of nepotism and conflicts of interest involving the Mayor were considered significant breaches affecting the recruitment's validity. The court emphasized that these irregularities, coupled with the lack of compliance with stipulated regulations, constituted sufficient grounds for the High Court's initial ruling.

REMEDY

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the High Court's ruling that set aside the appointment of Mr. Segapo as Municipal Manager. The court further ordered that the third to fifth appellants should personally pay the costs associated with the appeal on a party-and-party scale, recognizing the protracted nature of the litigation and its implications for public governance.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

This case established several key legal principles:

1. Principle of Legality: Public appointments must comply with both statutory and constitutional norms, emphasizing the need for transparency and public accountability within municipal governance.

2. Standing: Municipal employees and councillors possess the requisite standing to challenge public appointments when legal principles and regulations have potentially been contravened.

3. Procedural Fairness: Recruitment processes for public officials must adhere strictly to prescribed regulations to mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure impartiality in decision-making.