The embattled eMadlangeni (Utrecht) Municipality finds itself under the proverbial spotlight. This follows claims that a sheriff of the court is set to auction off some of the Municipality’s assets.
The reasoning behind this was to raise the necessary monies to compensate a former employee who was unfairly dismissed.
Allegedly, the former Director of Corporate Services Zamokuhle Mkhize was employed by the Utrecht Municipality back in 2018 and was dismissed when the current IFP-led administration stepped in, with the administration claiming that he had reached the retirement age of 65.
However, Mkhize took the matter to both the Labour Court and the SA Local Government Bargaining Council.
With tensions running rife and a national media publication adding fuel to the fire, claiming that the Utrecht Municipality is set to lose three Nissan bakkies, a fire truck, and a TLB when the auction finally gets underway, Newcastillian News contacted the eMadlangeni Municipality for insight.
The Utrecht Municipality explained that it was aware of the recent article published by the national media outlet. “The municipality dismisses these allegations, as they are false and do not give a true reflection of the facts,” said the Municipality’s Communications Unit.
Regarding the dismissal of Mkhize, the former Director of Corporate Services, the Municipality’s Communications Unit explained that the matter was currently subjudice, as the municipality had taken the matter on review at the Labour Court and therefore could not divulge any details related to the matter.
It further stated that the claims pertaining to his dismissal being unfair and due to political reasons has no basis and is yet to be tested in court. “When this matter is finalised, the municipality will give an update,” explained the Communications Unit.
As for the auction, the Communications Unit explained that the municipality was not aware of any pending auction and none has been brought to the attention of the administration.
Upon hearing about the claims of an impending auction, the eMadlangeni Municipality’s legal representatives contacted the sheriff to ascertain the correctness of the claims. The sheriff has denied any knowledge.
“When the lawyers of the applicant were contacted, they did not respond to our lawyers at the time of the statement. At this stage, no assets of the municipality will be auctioned off and the municipality does not anticipate any sale of municipal assets which are so crucial in the delivery of services. Should anything happen, such will be deemed illegal, and we reserve the right to take any legal action necessary,” emphasised the Utrecht Municipality’s Communications Unit.
The Municipality added that it should be noted that the municipality submitted a bond of security in lieu of the claimed amount, which apparently stands at R679 000. The Communications Unit highlighted that it could also confirm that the assets in question, are not held by the sheriff due to this bond of security.
“The applicant or the sheriff has no valid claim over these since the bond of security was lodged with the court and accepted. If the municipality were to lose this case, then the bond of security will be used rather than auctioning of assets,” told the Municipality’s Communications Unit.
With this in mind, the Utrecht Municipality has not only rejected the claims with contempt, but also the article published by the said national media publication.
“We further reiterate our concerns about the perpetual negative coverage of this municipality which is now seen as a concerted attempt to destabilise it and have the public losing confidence in it,” said the Communications, which stressed the national media publication did not approach the Municipality for comment.
“We further confirm that the municipality is busy finalising civil claims and criminal cases against all those who have misappropriated municipal resources in the past, in due course an announcement will be made of the progress,” said the Communications Unit.
The government entity further emphasised that it was currently focusing on ensuring that all available resources were directed at addressing the challenges that it was facing in relation to infrastructure backlogs and the recent floods which have severely affected the town’s infrastructure.
What are your thoughts on all of this? Share your views in the comment section below.
