The High Court of South Africa (Venda Provincial Division) in Thohoyandou has dismissed with costs three separate applications brought against the Vhembe District Municipality by the former executive mayor and municipal manager, Mrs Irene Mutsila and Joseph Silinda respectively.

The cases were heard by acting judge PZ Ebersohn, after which judgement was reserved.

The first case was the matter between Joseph Silinda (applicant) and former executive mayor, Irene Mutsila, Vhembe District Municipal Council and the Limpopo MEC for the Department of Local Government and Housing (Respondents).

In this matter, the applicant, Mr Joseph Silinda, was a serving councillor of Vhembe District Municipality when he was appointed to the post of municipal manager by the then executive mayor, Irene Mutsila. Silinda was seeking the reviewal and setting aside of the decision of the Vhembe Municipal Council to terminate or refusal to recognize his employment as municipal manager of the Vhembe District Municipality. According to a media alert by the Vhembe District Municipality, Silinda seeks to be allowed to continue to serve as municipal manager of Vhembe District Municipality, pending the outcome of the application and that he be awarded costs of the suit.

Part of the media statement reads: "When delivering judgement, Acting Judge PZ Ebersohn said, amongst others: What makes this case more remarkable was the attitude of the executive mayor, Irene Mutsila, who was nominally joined in her capacity as the executive mayor of Vhembe District Municipality and who was the person who illegally appointed Joseph Silinda in the post of municipal manager. It is common cause that Irene Mutsila was thereafter, by unanimous vote, dismissed by the council from her post as executive mayor, inter alia for appointing Mr Silinda, who was a friend of hers, as municipal manager, well knowing that as he was a sitting councillor, and that such an appointment was illegal (Section 62 (2) of the Government Ordinance of 1939)."

The acting judge further said that the defence, besides relying on Section 62 (2) of the Ordinance, advanced two further valid grounds why the appointment of Mr Silinda had been invalid, namely: firstly that Irene Mutsila, in any case, did not have power to appoint a municipal manager and secondly, that there in any case was no delegation of such power by council to the former executive mayor. He concluded by saying that: "As there is no merit in the application, I make the following order: The application is dismissed and the applicant must pay the costs of the 2nd and 3rd respondents (Vhembe District Municipality and the MEC), and that Irene Mutsila must pay her own costs.

The second case was between Irene Mutsila (applicant) and the Speaker of Vhembe District Municipality, in her capacity as chairperson of council and the District Municipality itself (respondents).

The applicant, Irene Mutsila, sought the reviewing and setting aside of her dismissal from the post of executive mayor of Vhembe District Municipality by the council of the municipality on July 2007. She also sought that the motion of no confidence in her, passed by the council, be declared invalid and of no force and effect. She further sought that the election of Mr Philemon Mdaka as the new executive mayor be declared unlawful and set aside and that the court direct the municipality to continue to pay her salary in accordance with the position of the executive mayor. The case was also dismissed with cost.

The acting judge ordered that Irene Mutsila’s removal from office and the appointment of Mdaka was done in accordance with the law. He cited Section 58 of the Municipal Structures Act No 117 of 1998.

The third matter was between Irene Mutsila as the applicant and the Vhembe District Municipality as respondent. Here, Mutsila was seeking reinstatement as the executive mayor of Vhembe District Municipality. The case was also dismissed with costs.

The spokesperson of Vhembe District Municipality, Mr Ndivhuwo Mamathuba, said: "The District Municipality welcomes and accepts the court judgement. The conclusion of this matter has made room for the District Municipality to focus more on its bigger mandate, that of delivering services to our people, thereby changing their lives for the better."