Reportable: NO
Circulate to Judges: NO
Circulate to Magistrates: NO
Circulate to Regional Magistrates: NO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHWEST DIVISION MAHIKENG
CASE NO: 2026-160672
In the matter between:
CLLR CORNEL DRYER
And
NGAKA MODIRI MOLEMA DISTRICT
MUNICIPALITY
MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF NGAKA
MODIRI MOLEMA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
CLLR NTHABISENG SHUPING N.O SPEAKER
OF COUNCIL OF NGAKA MODIRI MOLEMA DISTRICT
MUNICIPALITY
TEMEKI MABOKELA N.O MUNICIPAL MANAGER
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
FOURTH RESPONDENT
OF NGAKA MODIRI MOLEMA DISTRICT MUNICIPALITY
CLLR COLLEN MOHELEKETI FIFTH RESPONDENT
SIXTH RESPONDENT MEC OF THE NORTHWEST DEPARTMENT
OF CORPORATIVE GOVERNANCE, HUMAN
SETTLEMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Judgment is handed down electronically by e-mail to the parties' legal representatives .
The date on which the judgment was deemed to have been handed down is 27 July
2026 at 16H00.
Coram: B Mabuza
Heard on: 17 JULY 2026
Judgment delivered on: 27 July 2026.
ORDER
As a result, the following order is made:
1. The notice convening the Special Council Meeting of 22 June 2026 is
declared unlawful and invalid.
2. The proceedings and resolutions adopted at the meeting held on 23 June
2026 are reviewed and set aside.
3. The decision removing the applicant, Councillor Corne! Dreyer, as
Chairperson of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee is declared
unlawful and invalid.
4. The election of Councillor Collen Mohelekete as Chairperson of the
Municipal Public Accounts Committee is set aside.
5. The applicant is reinstated forthwith as Chairperson of the Municipal Public
Accounts Committee.
6. The respondents are directed to take all necessary steps under the
Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 and the Council's Standing Orders to
give effect to this order.
7. The first to the fifth respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this
application, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved,
including the costs of counsel, on the attorney-and-client scale.
Summary: Municipal governance - Urgent application to review removal of MPAC
Chairperson - Special Council Meeting convened on inadequate notice contrary to
Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998, and Standing Orders - Principle of legality
requires strict compliance with prescribed procedures - Resolutions removing
applicant and electing successor declared unlawful and set aside - Applicant
reinstated as MPAC Chairperson - Costs awarded against respondents on
attorney-and-client scale.
JUDGMENT
MABUZAAJ
INTRODUCTION
[1] This application concerns the removal of Councillor Cornel Dreyer from his
position as Chairperson of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee (MPAC)
of the Ng aka Modiri Molema District Municipality. The applicant seeks to review
and set aside the notice convening the Special Council Meeting of 22 June
2026, the proceedings of the meeting held on 23 June 2026, and the resolution
adopted thereat removing him from office. He further seeks reinstatement as
MPAC Chairperson and consequential relief.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
[2] The applicant was elected MPAC Chairperson in November 2024. On 19 June
2026, the Speaker issued a notice convening a Special Council Meeting for 22
June 2026. The meeting was ultimately held on 23 June 2026, at which a motion
of no confidence in the applicant was adopted and Councillor Collen
Mohelekete was elected as his successor. The applicant contends that the
notice and meeting were convened contrary to the Municipal Structures Act1
and the Council's Standing Orders, rendering the process unlawful.
URGENCY RELIEF
[3] The applicant alleges that the matter is urgent because the unlawful removal
continues to produce ongoing prejudice and undermines the oversight role of
MPAC. He seeks immediate judicial intervention to restore legality and prevent
further harm.
Applicant's Case
[4] The applicant contends that the impugned municipal decisions were unlawful
from inception. He submits that the Speaker acted outside the powers conferred
by law in convening the Special Council Meeting on inadequate notice, contrary
to the Municipal Structures Act and the Council's Standing Orders. He argues
that mandatory procedural safeguards were ignored, rendering the entire
process invalid. Urgency, he maintains, arises from the continuing prejudice
caused by his removal and the ongoing unlawful exercise of public power.
Respondents ' Case
[5] The respondents oppose the application in its entirety. They argue that the
meeting was lawfully convened, that authorised structures adopted the
resolutions, and that any procedural shortcomings were inconsequential. They
submit that urgency was self-created, as the applicant delayed in approaching
this Court, and that judicial interference would unduly disrupt municipal
governance .
1 Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998.
The dispute
[6] The essential dispute is whether the procedural defects alleged by the applicant
were material and rendered the resolutions invalid, and whether the matter
warrants urgent judicial intervention.
COMMON CAUSE FACTS
[7] It is not disputed that the applicant was elected Chairperson of MPAC in
November 2024, that on 19 June 2026 the Speaker issued a notice convening
a Special Council Meeting, and that the meeting was held on 23 June 2026. At
that meeting a motion of no confidence in the applicant was adopted, pursuant
to which he was removed from office and Councillor Collen Mohelekete was
elected as his successor.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[8] The questions for decision are whether the application warrants urgent
intervention under Rule 6(12), and if so, whether the notice convening the
Special Council Meeting, the proceedings of 23 June 2026, and the resolutions
adopted thereat complied with the Constitution2, the Municipal Structures Act,
and the Council's Standing Orders.
[9) If material non-compliance is established, this Court must determine whether
the resulting decisions are invalid and susceptible to review, and whether the
applicant is entitled to the declaratory and consequential relief sought, including
reinstatement and costs.
THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES
[1 OJ Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules empowers a court to dispense with ordinary
forms and service where circumstances justify urgent intervention. As Coetzee
J explained in Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Making and another. 3
2 The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
3 Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and another1977 (4) SA 135 (W) at 137 E-F.
'Practitioners should carefully analyse the facts of each case to determine, for
the purposes of setting the case down for hearing, whether a greater or lesser
degree of relaxation of the rules and of the ordinary practise of the court is
required. The degree of relaxation should not be greater than the exigency of
the case demands. It must be commensurate therewith.'
[11] The principle was restated in East Rock Trading 7 (Ply) Ltd v Eagle Valley
Granite (Pty) Ltd,4 that "The important issue is whether, despite the delay, the
applicant can or cannot be afforded substantial redress at a hearing in due course."
[12] Where the exercise of public power is challenged, urgency must be assessed
considering the continuing effect of the impugned conduct. See EFF v Speaker
of the National Assembly; DA v Speaker of the National Assembly.5 According
to this case, the rule of law requires that all public power must be exercised
lawfully , rationally and consistently with the Constitution .
[13] The Constitutiona l Court cautioned in National Treasury v Opposition to Urban
Tolling Alliance, 6 that Courts must remain mindful that interim or urgent relief
against the exercise of statutory powers may have significant consequences
for governance.
Principle of Legality
[14] Section 1 (c) of the Constitution enshrines the supremacy of the Constitution
and the rule of law. In Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd v Greater Johannesburg
Transitional Metropolitan Council,7 the Court held:
'the Legislature and Executive in every sphere are constrained by the principle
that they may exercise no power and perform no function beyond that conferred
upon them by law.'
4 East Rock Trading 7 (Pfy) Ltd v Eagle Valley Granite (Ply) Ltd 2011 JDR 1832 (GSJ) para 8.
5 EFF v Speaker of the National Assembly; DA v Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 (3) SA 580
(CC) paras 1 and 75.
6
National Treasury and Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2016 (3) SA 580
(CC) paras 44-47.
(CC) paras 44-47.
7 Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council
and Others 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC) para 58.
[15] Similarly, in Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of SA: In re Ex parte
President of the Republic of South Africa,8 Chaskalson P stated:
The exercise of all public power must comply with the Constitution, which is
the supreme law, and the doctrine of legality, which is part of that law.'
Ngcobo J in Affordable Medicines Trust v Minister of Health9 emphasised that the
exercise of public power must therefore comply with the Constitution , which is the
supreme law, and the doctrine of legality, which is part of the law.
Judicial Review of Municipal Decisions
[16] Municipal councils derive their authority from the Constitution and the Municipal
Structures Act. Their resolutions must comply with mandatory statutory
provisions and Standing Orders. As Cameron J observed in MEG for Health,
Eastern Cape v Kirland Investments (Ply) Ltd, 10 that 'The courts alone, and not
public officials, are the arbiters of legality. '
[17] In Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town, 11 Howie P explained:
ANALYSIS
'Until the administrator's approval and thus also the consequence of the
approval is set aside by a court in proceedings for judicial review, it exists in
fact, and it has legal consequences that cannot simply be overlooked.'
(18] The applicant approached this Court on urgent grounds . The facts demonstrate
that his removal from office continues to produce ongoing prejudice by
depriving him of the oversight functions attached to MPAC . Applying Luna
Meubel and East Rock Trading supra, the question is whether substantial
redress could be obtained in due course. Given the continuing effect of the
impugned decision , and consistent with Apleni v President of the Republic of
8 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) para 20.
9 Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Another 2006 (3) SA 247 (CC) para
49.
49.
10 MEG for Health, Eastern Cape and Another v Kirland Investments (Ply) Ltd 2014 (3) SA 481 (CC)
para 103.
11 Oudekraal Estates (Ply) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others 2004 (6) SA 222 (SCA) para.
South Africa, 12 this Court is satisfied that effective relief cannot await the
ordinary course. The delay in approaching this Court has been adequately
explained and does not render the urgency self-created.
[19] The principle of legality requires that every exercise of public power be
authorised by law and comply with mandatory procedures. The Speaker's
notice convening the Special Council Meeting was issued on inadequate notice,
contrary to the Council's Standing Orders. In terms of Fedsure and
Pharmaceutical Manufacturer supra, a municipal council may exercise no
power beyond that conferred by law, and must do so in the prescribed manner.
The failure to comply with mandatory notice requirements was not a trivial
irregularity but a jurisdictional defect that tainted the entire process.
[20] Not every procedural defect renders a decision invalid. The enquiry is whether
the requirement breached was mandatory and whether non-compliance
materially affected the lawfulness of the process. Here, the Standing Orders
prescribed notice periods and procedures for introducing motions. The
Speaker's failure to comply with those requirements deprived the Council of
lawful authority to entertain the motion. Applying Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism and Others v Pepper Bay Fishing (Pty) Ltd, 13 where
legislation prescribes the way power must be exercised, that procedure must
ordinarily be followed. The irregularity was therefore material and rendered the
resolutions invalid.
[21] In Kirland and Oudekraal supra, the courts emphasised that even unlawful
decisions exist in fact until set aside by a competent court. Once set aside,
however, their legal consequences cannot survive absent independent
authority. The removal of the applicant and the election of his successor were
consequences of an unlawful process. They must therefore be reviewed and
set aside.
12 Apleni v President of the Republic of South Africa and Another[2017] ZAGPPHC 656; [2018] 1 All
SA (GP) para 10.
SA (GP) para 10.
13 Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Pepper Bay Fishing (Pty) Ltd; Minister
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others v Smith 2004 (1) SA 308 (SCA) para 32
[22) The respondents urged judicial restraint, relying on National Treasury v
Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance.14 While courts must remain mindful of the
impact of urgent relief on governance, the Constitution requires that legality be
restored where public power has been exercised unlawfully. Declaratory relief
alone would be insufficient, as it would leave the municipality governed by an
invalid resolution. Reinstatement of the applicant as MPAC Chairperson is
necessary to restore legality and prevent continuing prejudice.
FINDING
[23) This Court is satisfied that the application warrants urgent intervention under
Rule 6(12). The Speaker's notice convening the Special Council Meeting was
issued contrary to the Council's Standing Orders and the Municipal Structures
Act. The resulting meeting and resolutions were therefore unlawful. The
removal of the applicant and the election of his successor were consequences
of that unlawful process and cannot stand.
[24] As a result, the following order is made:
1. The notice convening the Special Council Meeting of 22 June 2026 is
declared unlawful and invalid.
2. The proceedings and resolutions adopted at the meeting held on 23 June
2026 are reviewed and set aside.
3. The decision removing the applicant, Councillor Corne! Dreyer, as
Chairperson of the Municipal Public Accounts Committee is declared
unlawful and invalid.
4. The election of Councillor Collen Mohelekete as Chairperson of the
Municipal Public Accounts Committee is set aside.
5. The applicant is reinstated forthwith as Chairperson of the Municipal Public
Accounts Committee.
14 National Treasury and Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2016 (3) SA 580
(CC) paras 44-47~
6. The respondents are directed to take all necessary steps under the
Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 and the Council's Standing Orders to
give effect to this order.
7. The first to fifth respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application,
jointly and severally , the one paying the others to be absolved, including the
costs of counsel , on the attorney-and-client scale.
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTHWEST DIVISION, MAHIK ENG
Appearances
Applicant's Counsel:
Applicant 's Attorney :
Counsel for the Respondent:
Adv HJ Scholtz
No 17 Clarendon Street
Golfview
Mahikeng
2745
Tel: 018 381 0881
Email: ntsamai.maf@gmail.com
Ref: TN/CIV/o37/26T2
Adv Cwaro
Addresses omitted.