HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 076447/2026
In the matter between:
THE DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE Applicant
and
MUNICIPAL DERMACATION BOARD First Respondent
GAMAGARA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
MUNICIPALITY MANAGER OF THE GAMAGARA
LOCAL MUNICPALITY Third Respondent
INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL COMMISSION Fourth Respondent
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL:
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE, HUMAN SETTLEMENTS AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN CAPE Fifth Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: YES
(2) OF INTE REST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 31 AUGUST 2026
SIGNATURE
2
MINISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS Sixth Respondent
Summary: Municipal elections – delimitation of municipal wards by Municipal
Demarcation Board – once the procedures in the statutory
provisions, making provision for a notice -and-comment procedure
have been followed, this constitutes sufficient procedural fairness
and it is not required that the Board keep repeating the process
every time after having received and considered public comments
and objections before publishing a final delimitation of wards.
Review against a delimitation of wards of the Gama gara
Municipality refused on both the procedural and rationality
challenges.
ORDER
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.
________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________________________________________________
The matter was heard in open court and the judgment was prepared , authored
and concurred with by the judge s whose name s are reflected herein and was
handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by
3
email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The
date of handing-down is deemed to be 31 August 2026.
DA VIS, J
Introduction
[1] On 15 December 2025, the Municipal Demarcation Board (the MDB)
published a final de limitation of municipal wards in Gamagara , being a
municipality in the Northern Cape Province. This was done in terms of the
Local Government: Municipal Demarcation Act 1 (the Demarcation Act), read
with Schedule 1 of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act 2 (the
Structures Act).
[2] Gamagara has been allocated 15 ward councillor positions by the MEC
for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs (COGTA) in the Northern
Cape Province in terms of the Structures Act . This is with a view to the
upcoming municipal elections scheduled for 4 November 2026.
[3] The Democratic Alliance (DA), a political party contesting the elections,
seeks to have the delimitation reviewed and set aside. The principal grounds for
review relied on are that the d elimitation process was not procedurally fair and
that the final ward delimitation was not rationally and lawfully supported by
relevant facts.
[4] The MDB argued that by the time the matter came before court on 24
July 2026, the review had become moot as the final voter registration process
was due to be finalised and that a review could or should not undo that process.
Furthermore the MDB denied that there had been any procedural unfairness or
that the demarcation was open to any rationality attack.
1 27 of 1998.
2 117 of 1998
4
Chronology
[5] The procedural fairness attack is much dependent on the chronology of
the process followed by the MDB and it is therefore apposite to summarise the
facts as they unfolded over time.
[6] After the COGTA allocation referred to earlier and after a general
education session had been held late in 2024 at the Gamagara municipality
regarding the issue of the delimitation of ward boundaries, the MDB convened a
virtual ward limitation technical configuration session with councillors of the
municipality on 11 March 2025. Hereafter, on 2 April 2025, the MDB published
its first draft of proposed ward boundaries for the municipality for public
comment by 30 June 2025.
[7] On 23 April 2025 DA submitted detailed written objections, supported by
a petition signed by 3 000 voters. On 29 May 2025 the DA submit ted a
proposed alternative delimitation in response to the MDB's first draft . Herein,
the DA accepted the MDB's proposed configuration in respect of wards 3, 4, 5
and 7 and proposed amendments to wards 1, 2, 6 and 8 . On 14 June 2025 the
Municipality submitted its proposal to the MDB.
[8] On 29 September 2025 the MDB published a second draft of ward
delimitations. The second draft closely mirror ed the DA's proposals. On 13
October 2025 the Municipality objected to the 29 September proposal.
[9] On 7 November the MDB’s ward delimitation and boundary
determination committee considered the objections received after publication of
second draft.
[10] On 15 December 2025 the MDB published the final de limitation of
5
municipal wards for Gamagara. It is this de limitation that the DA seeks to have
reviewed and set aside.
The DA’s case
[11] The DA complained that the final delimitation departed substantially
from the published second draft and contended that it instead closely mirrors the
Municipality's submission. The changes brought about by the final delimitation
appear from the record and I shall refer thereto more fully hereinlater. In the
meantime, the following summary will suffice : t he Mapoteng Multi -Purpose
Centre voting district was removed from Ward 2 and allocated to Ward 8. The
Kathu Technical College voting district was split into a number of portions and
allocated to different wards . The Bestwood Show House voting district was
removed from Ward 8 and incorporated into Ward 2.
[12] In terms of voter numbers, t he result of these changes were that Ward 8
changed from the second draft , then comprising Siyathemba Community Hall
(1,612 voters), Kathu Technical College (970 voters) and Bestwood Show
House (639 voters), to comprising Siyathemba Community Hall (1,612 voters)
and Mapoteng Multi-Purpose Centre (1,500 voters) in the final publication.
Further, the Kathu Technical College voting district was split between Wards 1,
2 and 6.
[13] The DA’s argument was that, after the MBD had published its second
draft, it (only) received a further objection from the Municipality. It thereafter
departed from both the second draft and the Municipality’s objection and went
ahead and without notice, published the final demarcation.
[14] The DA’s principal complaint was that it had not been informed of the
Municipality’s objections to the secon d draft and neither were its comments
thereon solicited. It contend ed that this was procedurally unfair. The DA
6
contended that prior notice of the intended final delimitation was required by
section 3(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act3.
[15] On the issue of rationality, the DA contended that the MD B had failed to
establish whether the final delimitation was rationally connected to the
information before it. In particular, the DA accused the MD B of accepting some
of the Municipality’s objections, without verifying the factual correctness
thereof.
[16] The DA also contended that, from its reading of the record, there appears
to be an absence of any meaningful consideration of material statutory
considerations, including community cohesion, geographic coherence, ward
manageability, voting-district integrity and the avoidance of unnecessary
fragmentation. In heads of argument delivered on behalf of the DA, it was
contended that the MD B had not meaningfully considered the DA’s
submissions and had improperly attached weight to the Municipality’s
objections.
[17] With particular reliance on an analysis performed at its instance by a Mr
Firth, the DA argued that the final ward implementation was inconsistent with
the factual premises of the Municipality’s objection. In this regard, the DA
argued that the distances of certain suburbs from voting stations as alleged by
the Municipality, were geographically incorrect, that the final de limitation went
beyond the Municipality’s objections and that, in respect of the Kathu Technical
College voting district, no data was provided explaining why the voting district
had been split.
3 3 of 2000. The relevant sections provide that “ …in order to give effect to the right to procedurally fair
administrative action, an administrator…must give [an affected] person (i) adequate notice of the nature
and purpose of the proposed administrative action and (ii) a reasonable opportunity to make
representations…”.
7
The MDB’s case
[18] On the issue of alleged procedural unfairness, the MDB’s position was
straightforward. It contended that t he ward delimitation process followed
precisely the statutory framework contemplated by the Structures Act and the
Demarcation Act. The DA had participated fully throughout that process, made
detailed representations after the first draft and elected not to object to the
second draft or place further material before the MDB . Consequently the MDB
argued that n either the Constitution nor the governing legislation required the
MDB to reopen public participation or invite further objections before
exercising its independent judgment.
[19] The MDB argued that the DA’s complaint cannot be sustained on either
the pleaded facts or the statutory framework.
[20] The MDB was at pains to point out that the de limitation process which it
was obliged to undertake, is not adversarial in nature. While the M DB is
obliged to receive and consider representations and objections, it is under no
obligation to furnish one stakeholder with the representations or objections of
another stakeholder or to afford every participant an opportunity to comment on
those competing submissions. To require such a process would fundamentally
alter the statutory scheme and transform the MDB’s consultative function into
an iterative adversarial process, contrary to the legislative design.
[21] The MDB contended that it had complied with every procedural
requirement prescribed by the applicable legislation. It had conducted education
and awareness sessions, published the first draft, invited and considered
representations, published the second draft, invited objections, considered those
objections through its statutory decision -making structures, and thereafter
published the final ward delimitations.
8
[22] On the issue of rationality the MD B contended that the DA’s rationality
challenge impermissibly conflates a rationality review with an enquiry into
whether the MDB adopted what it believes is the best or preferable ward
configuration. That is not the constitutional standard.
[23] The MD B objected to the DA’s contention that the final ward
delimitations are not rationally connected to the statutory criteria or the material
before the MDB simply because the Rule 53 record allegedly does not explain
why the MDB departed from aspects of the second draft after considering the
Municipality’s objection, nor does it disclose the reasoning or methodology
underlying the final ward configuration.
[24] The MDB argued that the question is not whether the Rule 53 record
contains the level of detail the DA would have preferred, nor whether every step
in the MDB’s deliberative process is recorded. The enquiry is whether the
delimitation ultimately published bears a rational connection to the purpose for
which the power was conferred and the material before the MDB. The Rule 53
record demonstrates precisely that connection. It contains the first draft
delimitations, the public participation process, the DA’s representations, the
publication of the second draft, the Municipality’s objection, the assessment of
that objection by the MDB’s statutory committees, the MDB resolution, and the
publication of the final ward delimitations.
[25] On the issue of a rational connection, the M DB, a s a starting point,
pointed out that the delimitation of Wards 3, 4, and 5 remained unchanged
throughout the ward delimitation process. The DA proposed no amendments to
these wards during public participation; no objections were lodged following
publication of the second draft, and the MDB accordingly confirmed the
existing configurations in the final determination. Ward 3 remained at 2 816
9
registered voters, Ward 4 at 2 995 registered voters, and Ward 5 at 3 513
registered voters, all within the prescribed voter deviation range.
[26] Ward 1, as initially delineated, comprised of 3553 registered voters. The
DA proposed moving Uitkoms Estate from Ward 1 to Ward 6 and returning
Khudunyane Estate to Ward 1. According to the DA, this would improve voter
parity between Wards 1 and 6 and create more logical boundaries. The second
draft reduced Ward 1 by removing 150 Uitkoms Estate voters and allocating
100 voters from the Kathu Technical College voting district. The Municipality
objected to the removal of the Uitkoms Estate voters on the basis that it would
fragment an established Kathu community, whilst supporting the allocation of
the 100 Kathu Technical College voters.
[27] The final determination retained the allocation of the 100 Kathu
Technical College voters but reversed the proposed removal of the Uitkoms
Estate voters, resulting in a final total of 3,295 voters.
[28] Ward 2 initially consisted of 3 257 voters. The DA proposed removing
the Bestwood Show House voting district from Ward 2 to Ward 8 and adding
part of the Mapoteng Multi-Purpose Centre voting district to the Khaiappel
voting district, contending that this would produce a voter total closer to the
norm and a more geographically coherent ward. The second draft incorporated
the Mapoteng Multi -Purpose Centre voting district into Ward 2. The
Municipality objected to the proposed incorporation of approximately 1 500
voters from the Mapoteng area into Ward 2 and proposed instead that those
voters be allocated to Ward 8, while approximately 1 088 voters from Kathu
Phases 1 and 2 be incorporated into Ward 2.
[29] The objection was based on accessibility, administrative efficiency,
service delivery, and community cohesion. It recorded that Mapoteng is
10
geographically and functionally closer to Siyathemba, shares its socioeconomic
and transport linkages, and that incorporating Mapoteng into Ward 2 would
increase the ward’s already significant geographical footprint and service
delivery challenges. By contrast, incorporating voters from Kathu Phases 1 and
2 into Ward 2 would better align with existing social, economic, and service
delivery linkages associated with the Dibeng area and promote more balanced
representation across the affected wards. The MDB amended the delimitation of
Ward 2 by removing the Mapoteng Multi -Purpose Centre voting district,
comprising approximately 1 500 voters, and reallocating it to Ward 8. Ward 2
was further adjusted through the inclusion of a split portion from Kathu
Technical College, comprising approximately 970 voters, together with the
inclusion of the Bestwood Show House voting district, comprising
approximately 639 voters.
[30] Ward 6 initially consisted of 3 786 voters. The DA proposed removing
the Rooisand portion and incorporating it into Ward 8, contending that this
would reduce the voter population of Ward 6, increase the voter population of
Ward 8, and maintain coherent boundaries within Kathu.
[31] The second draft indeed reduced Ward 6 to 3,516 voters following the
removal of Rooisand. In relation to Ward 6, the Municipality objected to the
second draft and proposed restoring the ward’s historic configuration by
returning the areas moved to Wards 1 and 8, while transferring only
approximately 1 088 voters from Kathu Phases 1 and 2 to Ward 2. The
objection was motivated on the basis of voter balance, community integrity,
administrative efficiency, and continuity of service delivery, contending that
this targeted adjustment would retain Ward 6 within the permissible voter range,
preserve coherent ward boundaries, and maintain its core composition around
the Kathu Technical College.
11
[32] Ward 8 initially consisted of 3 112 voters. The DA proposed
incorporating the Bestwood Show House voting district from Ward 2 together
with the aforementioned Rooisand portion, contending that this would address
the undersizing of Ward 8 and improve voter parity across Wards 1, 6, and 8.
[33] In relation to Ward 8, the Municipality objected to the second draft and
proposed incorporating the Mapoteng area into Ward 8, while returning the
Bestwood Show House voting district to Ward 2 and the Kathu Technical
College voting district to Ward 6. The objection was motivated by
considerations of voter balance, community cohesion, service delivery,
administrative efficiency, and boundary integrity. It contended that Mapoteng
and Siyathemba shared common service -delivery corridors, transport routes,
and municipal services, whereas Bestwood Show House and Kathu Technical
College were more closely associated with Wards 2 and 6, respectively. The
proposed configuration was said to promote coherent ward boundaries, balanced
representation, and place Ward 8 comfortably within the prescribed voter range.
[34] The final determination incorporated the Mapoteng Multi -Purpose Centre
voting district, comprising approximately 1 500 voters, and by removing and re-
allocating the Bestwood Show House voting district.
[35] The MDB therefore contended that the final delimitations therefore
neither replicated the DA’s proposals nor the Municipality’s objections in their
entirety. They reflect the MDB’s independent evaluation of the competing
representations against the statutory criteria. It contended that that is precisely
the function entrusted to the MDB by the Constitution.
[36] The DA replied that the above outcome was not rational, if one has regard
to the factors which the Demarcation Act obliged the MD B to consider. In
12
support of this contention, the DA relied on expert opinion evidence. This
expert opinion was counterdeed by the MDB claiming that any reliance by the
DA on the findings and/or opinions of the expert (a Mr Firth) was
impermissible and amounted to a new case which the DA sought to make out in
reply. The difficulty for the DA , so the MDB argued, was that Mr Frith’s
analysis was not merely confirmatory of the DA’s arguments, but advanced a
new factual case. It introduced GIS analysis, dwelling counts, aerial imagery, an
alternative voter allocation methodology, and conclusions concerning the
alleged irrationality of the split of the Kathu Technical College voting ward.
None of this formed part of the DA’s submissions to the MDB, its founding
papers, nor was it material that served before the MDB when it exercised its
statutory powers.
The evidence to be considered
[37] In order to determine what evidence the court has to rely on, I shall start
with the last of the aforementioned aspect s, that is whether the DA has
impermissibly attempted to make out a new case in reply. The chronology
exposes the DA’s difficulty. Mr F irth expressly confirmed that he conducted
his analysis only on 30 June 2026 , that is after the DA’s submission to the
MDB. This was despite , on the DA’s own version, he has been employed by
the DA as a Software Architect specialising in geographical data and mapping.
It appears that t he DA, therefore, had access to this expertise throughout the
ward delimitation process, but chose not to place an analysis done by the expert
before the MDB as part of its initial proposals after publication of the first draft
or as motivation for its proposal.
[38] The first consequence hereof is that the MDB cannot be criticised if its
delimitation differs from a proposed delimitation which was not before it at the
time.
13
[39] The second consequence is that if the DA wanted to rely on Mr Firth’s
analysis and proposed delimitation on order to argue that the MDB had acted
irrationally or that its delimitation was not rationally connected to the material
before it, bearing in mind the objectives and factors statutorily prescribed, then
than case should have been made out in its founding papers. This was not done.
The introduction of Mr Firth’s analysis and expert opinion only in reply, is
impermissible and should be disregarded.
Was there a procedural unfairness?
[40] Item 2 of part 1 of Schedule 1 of the S tructures Act prescribes that the
MDB must “… delimit all metropolitan municipalities and all local
municipalities that must have wards, into wards” . In terms of item 3 of the
same Schedule, the number of wards must equal the number of ward councillors
determined for a particular municipality.
[41] All that the S tructures Act prescribes by way of procedure, is that once
the MDB has published a delimitation, any person “… aggrieved by a
delimitation may within 14 days of publication submit objections in writing
…and the [MDB] must (a) consider those objections and (b) confirm, vary or
withdraw its determination”.
[42] A similar “once-off” procedure is prescribed in the Demarcation Act, in
terms whereof the MDB has to determine municipal boundaries 4, except that the
period for objections is 30 days as opposed to 14 days.
[43] The DA argues with reliance on section 3(2)(b) of PAJA that, in order to
give effect to fair administrative action, an administrator must give interested
persons adequate notice of the nature and purpose of the proposed
4 Sections 21(1) – 21(5).
14
administrative action and afford such persons reasonable opportunity to make
representations.
[44] In support of this contention, the DA relied on Moodley5 and Bryntirion6
which cases confirmed that notice of impending administrative action to an
affected party is essential in our law and that such notice includes the duty to
provide the affected party with “ the essential information which motivates the
impending action and must indicate what the main considerations for the
contemplated action are in order to enable the affected person to prepare a
response”.
[45] Applied to the present case , t he DA argue d that the MDB had been
obliged to inform the DA of the Municipality’s objections and should have
allowed it to counter same and/or that the MDB should have informed the
public (including the DA) of the fact that it intended to make a determination
along the line s contained in the final delimitation. When I questioned counsel
for the DA how this should have been done, he suggested that “a letter could
have been written” or that the DA could have been furnished with a copy of the
Municipality’s objections. The argument was further that, as with the
publication of the initial delimitation and the publication of the second draft, the
final delimitation should again have been published for comment or circulated
to affected parties, before it became the MDB’s final delimitation.
[46] Whilst the DA’s argument regarding prior notice of administrative action,
coupled with an opportunity to make representations , is in general correct and
mirrors section 3 of PAJA, it is equally trite that procedural fairness is context -
5 Minister of safety and Security v Moodley [2011] 4 All SA 47(SCA).
6 Erf 16 Bryntirion (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works [2011] ZASCA 246 at para 12.
15
specific7.
[47] In the present matter, the MDB has, in similar fashion as in demarcation
cases, proceeded by way of the “notice -and-comment” procedure, provided for
in section 4 of PAJA 8. The facts established that the MDB had conducted
education and awareness sessions, published a first draft, invited, received and
considered representations, published a second draft, again invited, received and
considered objections and thereafter published the final ward delimitations.
[48] Our courts have held that the work of the MDB is not adversarial in
nature and that the audi alteram partem principle was not applicable in its
widest sense. In Democratic Alliance v Municipal Demarcation Board 9
Kollapen J, with reference to Hartebeespoort Plaaslike Raa d v Munisipale
Afbakeningsraad10 described the processes to be undertaken by the MD B as
follows: “… the process of notice and comment …was not adversarial in nature
and what was required …was to gather information and views and consider
them…To uphold the [DA’s] contentions in this regard would be to create an
ongoing and potentially infinite process of sharing and exchanging submissions
and comment at the great risk of paralysing and rendering ineffective,
administrative bodies and functionaries. Apart from the need for procedural
fairness, administrative action must also seek to contribute to efficiency in
administration”. Although the facts were different in the matter before
Kollapen J, I find his comments particularly applicable to the present case.
[49] It is notable that the MD B had not, in the final delimitation, accepted or
7 MEC, Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment v HTF Developers (Pty) Ltd 2008 (2) SA
319 (CC) at para 76.
8 Section 4(3) of PAJA prescribes that “ If an admini strator decides to follow a notice and comment
procedure, the administrator must- (a) take appropriate steps to communicate the administrative action
to those likely to be affected by it and call for comments from them, (b) consider any comments received
[and] decide whether to take the administrative action with or without changes…”.
9 (70915/2015) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1090 (6 November 2015).
10 [2002] 2 All SA 391(T).
16
incorporated the objections of the Municipality in a wholesale fashion. Some of
the objections were indeed followed, some not, while others were only partially
accepted, leaving the remainder of the delimitation as in the preceding second
draft, which is the draft on which the DA had not comment ed but apparently
approved, even if by its silence.
[50] To find that the above process should have been interrupted in order to
give the DA again an opportunity to respond and comment on the
Municipality’s comments and objections, would have resulted in a potentially
“never-ending story”, such as the one warned against, albeit in a different
context, in Minister of Education, Western Cape and Another v Beauvallon
Secondary School and Others 11. This was also not the procedure contemplated
in either the Systems Act or the Demarcation Act. I therefore find that the DA’s
demands for a different procedure than that adopted by the MDB cannot be
sustained and that the process followed by the MDB was not unfair.
The rationality evaluation
[51] The DA formulated its “primary complaint” in this regard as follows in
its heads of argument: “ … the final ward delimitation is not shown… to be
rationally connected to the statutory criteria, the material before the MDB or
the reasons now advanced for the final configuration…”.
[52] The last of the above contentions can be dispensed with fairly shortly and
I shall therefore start with it. The DA argued that the record did not disclose the
“reasoning and methodology” of the MDB. The DA says the justification for the
final delimitation, particularly as to the rationality thereof, was only furnished in
the MDB’s answering affidavit. Although the DA had not requested reasons
before embarking on the review process 12, it correctly pointed out that such a
11 2015 (2) SA 154 (SCA) at par 25.
12 As contemplated in PAJA or section 21(6) of the Demarcation Act.
17
request is not a precondition for rationality.
[53] The DA argued that the MDB’s reasons for the final delimitation, must
clearly have been influenced by the objections from the Municipality. This
appears to be correct. The DA then argued that, without the reasoning which
led to the final determination being expressly stated in the record, it cannot be
tested. In support of this contention, the DA relied on Helen Suzman
Foundation v Judicial Service Commission 13 (HSF). Whilst the argument is
sound, that it must be discernible from the record what led to a decisionmaker
coming to the conclusion it did, the reliance on HSF is misplaced. That
judgment dealt with the requirement and extent of disclosure of the
deliberations of a decision -making body. The court concluded that such
deliberations do not automatically form part of a Rule 53 record and that the
disclosure issue depends on the applicable statutory prescripts and the facts of
each case.
[54] In the context of the present case, I find that the record was sufficient to
allow a consideration of the rationality issue, which is an objective test.
[55] Item 4 of Schedule 1 of the Structures Act, lists the criteria that the MDB
must, after consultation with the Electoral Commission take into account. These
are principally that the number of voters in each ward, may not vary by more
than 15% from the norm, where the norm is determined by dividing the total
number of registered voters on the municipality’s segment of the national
common voters roll by the number of wards in the municipality, the need to
avoid as far as possible the fragmentation of communities and the availability of
a suitable place or places for voting. Regard should also be had to identifiable
ward boundaries and the safety and security of voters and election material.
13 2017 (1) SA 367 (SCA).
18
[56] The MDB contended that it had proper regard to all these factors and
stands by its delimitation as being statutorily compliant. The DA relied on Stats
SA Dwelling Frame data and GIS analyses (principally put forward in its
replying affidavit) and suggests that the MDB should have performed the same
verification type of analyses, which may have resulted in different factual
conclusions. One should bear in mind that, as pointed out earlier, this
contention must be limited to what was placed before the MDB, that is,
excluding the opinion belatedly expressed by Mr Firth.
[57] In my view, the M DB is correct when it asserts that the question is not
whether “other” configurations, methodologies or factual assessments could
have been adopted, but whether the final ward delimitations are objectively
rationally connected to the purpose for which the power of delimitation was
conferred and the information before the MD B. In this regard, our courts have
consistently held the view that a substantial measure of deference is appropriate,
especially when dealing with a complex or specialist type of decision -making
process14.
[58] In the present instance, the record contains the initial draft ward
delimitations, then it recorded the public participation process, the consideration
of the DA’s representations and the adoption of some of the proposals, as
contained in the second draft. Thereafter the record demonstrates that the
Municipality’s subsequent objections, as contemplated by the S tructures Act,
were considered by a number of the MDB’s statutory committees, whereafter
the Board itself considered the final delimitations and took a resolution on it
before it was published. When viewed as a whole, the record demonstrates that
an evaluative process had been followed. This is why neither all of the
Municipality’s objections were adopted and why neither all of the DA’s earlier
14 Logbro Properties CC v Bedderson NO 2003 (2) SA 460 (SCA).
19
proposals were rejected. It therefore reflected an independent evaluation, the
result of which is objectively rationally connected to reflect voting wards which
were evaluated according the prescribed criteria.
[59] The fact that the record did not contain a detailed narrative or exposition
of the MDB’s deliberative process whereby every evaluative judgment had been
explained or why one submission was preferred over another, does not detract
from this fact. I am satisfied that the changes to the second draft which have
been described earlier in this judgment and which resulted in the final
delimitation, sufficiently indicate that the MDB had struck a reasonable balance
between various contentions put before it and has selected reasonable means to
satisfy the legislative objective of delimiting voting wards 15. This was and
remains the MDB’s statutory obligation.
[60] The fact that the DA, based on how it viewed the delimitation criteria,
may have come to a different conclusion than the MDB or preferred a different
outcome in respect of a couple of hundred voters which could or may have been
included in or excised from a specific ward, does not render the decision of the
MDB irrational and reviewable.
Conclusion
[61] In the premises. I find that the review should fail , both on the procedural
and the rationality challenges.
Costs
[62] In respect of costs, I find the Bato Star -principle should apply and that
each party should pay its own costs. This includes the Municipality and its
manager, who had also participated in this application as the second and third
15 Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others 2004 (4) SA 490
(CC) at paras 48-50.
20
respondents.
Order
[63] In the premises the following order is made:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. Each party is ordered to pay its own costs.
______________________
N DAVIS
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of Hearing: 30 July 2026
Judgment delivered: 31 August 2026
APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant: Adv N Ferreira together with
Adv P Maharaj-Pillay
Attorney for the Applicant: Minde Schapiro & Smith
Attorneys, Pretoria
For the First Respondent: Adv M Gwala SC together with
Adv I Mpofu
Attorney First Respondent: Ngeno and Mteto Inc., Pretoria
21
For the Second & Third Respondents: Adv L A Roux
Attorney Second & Third Respondents: Peyper Attorneys, Pretoria