THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA , JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
Case No: 2025- 013682
In the matter between:
OLAOTSE THEOPHILUS BOJOSINYANE Applicant
and
DITSOBOTLA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
COUNCILOR MAZWI MORURI N.O. Second Respondent
RASUPANG CLARIUS MOOKETSI N.O. Third Respondent
MEC: COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE, HUMAN
SETTLEMENT AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, NORTH WEST Fourth Respondent
Heard: In Chambers
Delivered: 20 March 2025
2
JUDGMENT ON COSTS
MAKHURA , J
[1] On 28 February 2025, this Court issued a judgment in terms of which it was
ordered inter alia that:
‘The second and third respondents are each directed to file the affidavit with the
Office of the Registrar of this Court within 5 Court days of this judgment, to show
cause why they should not be ordered to pay the costs of the application on
attorney and client scale, jointly or jointly and severally in their respective
personal capacities.’
[2] The above order was issued after the Court observed that the decision of the
Municipality, obviously under the mayorship of the second respondent, to constitute a
special meeting to uplift its earlier decis ion to place the applicant on special leave and to
terminate the applicant’s contract of employment with immediate effect on 30 January
2025 was intended to circumvent the urgent application launched by the applicant to
challenge the decision to place him on special leave which was s cheduled for hearing
on 31 January 2025.
[3] In addition, the Court observed that the Municipality was well aware that to
overturn the applicant’s appointment as a municipal manager , they were required to
approach the High Court or this Court for that relief . For the third respondent, he was
equally aware of the appropriate judicial process as he had already initiated
proceedings before the North West High Court , Mahikeng to set aside the applicant’s
appointment . If there was any doubt, the fourth respondent had filed a judicial review
process and that application was also pending before the High Court, Mahikeng.
However, the Municipality and the second and third respondents elected to oppose th e
application. The second respondent, with all this knowledge, elected to take up the
3
appointment as an acting municipal manager and further opposed the urgent
application.
[4] The Court therefore took the view that “ taxpayers’ monies should not be funding
what appears to be personal and emotional battles and self -created litigation” and
invited the second and third respondents to each file an affidavit with the Registrar to
show cause why they should not be ordered to pay the applicant’s costs , on a client and
attorney scale.
[5] On 5 March 2025, t he Municipality , together with the second and third
respondents, filed an application for leave to appeal . On 6 March 2025, the application
for leave to appeal was withdrawn. The second and third respondents have rejected the
Court’s invitation by elect ing not to file affidavits as directed. In the absence of any
explanation from the second and third respondents, and for the reasons set out in the main judgment and this judgment, the second and third respondents must be held liable
to pay the costs of the urgent application jointly and severally. I have decided to
exercise my discretion and award costs on a party and part scale.
[6] In the premises, the following order is made:
Order :
1. The second and third respondent s are ordered to pay the costs of the urgent
application on a party and party scale, jointly and severally in their respective personal
capacit ies, the one paying the other to be absolved.
M. Makhura
Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa