Louis Trichardt or Makhado? The Appeal Court case in connection with the controversial name change of the town could be heard in the near future. An important advancement was made on April 14.

“We filed minutes of hearing on April 14. Within 60 days thereof, we will file the heads of argument. We will then ask for a court date with special circumstances to expedite the court case,” reads a statement of the Chairpersons Association.

Because the case is of national significance and of a sensitive nature, the appeal court case could be heard sooner than expected in the normal order of cases.

In November last year, Judge MK Legodi of the High Court in Pretoria gave the Chairperson’s Association leave to appeal against his High Court judgment of September 8, 2005. In that judgment, Judge Legodi dismissed the Chairpersons Association’s application to set aside the name change of the town to Makhado, with costs. By giving leave to appeal, the judgment was set aside, pending the judgment of the Appeal Court.

A central argument during the court case was the matter of proper consultation.

“The CA stands for correct governing procedures. We don’t want a process where only 0.3% of residents were consulted in connection with a name change, but good and transparent governing processes. A good example is the name Limpopo which is not dividing and in that case proper consultation took place,” the Chairperson, Mr André Naudé, said.

During the High Court Case in Pretoria the counsel for the defence, advocate Sam Maritz, said that there is nothing in the Act to suggest consultation as a requirement. He argued that councillors elected into office by the people, were entitled to take a decision on the name change without any consultation with or participation by the people. Judge Legodi was not impressed with that submission.

“Whilst the councillors … might have been elected into office by the people, on a national issue like the changing of name of a town, one would expect them to consider the sensitive nature of the matter and to revert to those who had elected them into office for a proper mandate,” Judge Legodi wrote in his judgment. Before concluding the judgment of September, the issue of making a country uncontrollable by acting against the government was touched upon. The judgment appeared to be based to a large extent on a technical point.

When leave to appeal was granted, the CA again requested the business sector not to engage in any name changes, pending the judgment of the Appeal Court. Last year, the municipal spokesperson, Mr Peter Magwala, said that the Pretoria High Court’s judgment was progressive. He was not available for comment this week.