The Pietermaritzburg High Court has declared the election of the Amajuba District Municipality’s Mayor and Deputy Mayor unlawful and unconstitutional, ordering their immediate removal from office and restoring the status quo that existed prior to the disputed council meeting of May 2025.
The judgment, delivered on Thursday, 29 January 2026, follows urgent legal action brought by the African National Congress (ANC) and Team Sugar South Africa (TSSA) in the district.
The applicants sought to overturn the election of Councillor Thembelihle Mthembu as District Mayor and Councillor Shaka Sithole as Deputy Mayor, arguing that the process through which they assumed office was fundamentally irregular and violated statutory requirements governing municipal proceedings.
Mthembu and Sithole, both senior members of the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP), were elected on 23 May 2025 during a council sitting that later became the subject of intense legal scrutiny. That meeting was characterised in court papers as chaotic and procedurally flawed, with allegations that councillors were prevented from participating in the proceedings.
According to submissions made by ANC councillor Ally Khoza, only 14 of the municipality’s 29 councillors were present when the elections were conducted, rendering the meeting inquorate.
Khoza further alleged that 15 councillors were actively prevented from accessing the venue, effectively excluding elected representatives from participating in council business.
The application was supported by confirmatory affidavits from TSSA leader Musa Thwala and ANC-aligned councillor Sizwe Mngomezulu.
Khoza argued that resolutions taken under these circumstances were legally untenable and warned that allowing unlawfully elected office-bearers to continue in their roles posed risks to the municipality’s administrative and financial governance.
In tracing the events leading to the disputed meeting of 20 May 2025, the court noted that a formal petition had been submitted to the Speaker on 7 May 2025 requesting that a meeting be convened, including a motion of no confidence. The Speaker did not act on this request.
A special meeting was later convened for 20 May 2025. However, the court observed that the agenda excluded the requested motion and that proceedings descended into disorder following the appearance of an individual who had not been lawfully appointed as a councillor.
Of particular concern to the court were allegations that councillors who walked out of the meeting were later prevented from re-entering the venue after the sitting was moved to another room within the municipal building. The judgment noted that no adequate explanation was provided regarding how councillors were informed of the change of venue, nor why members of the South African Police Service were allegedly positioned to prevent councillors from entering.
These allegations were described by the court as serious and insufficiently addressed by the respondents.
While arguments were advanced that a quorum may nonetheless have existed, the court held that this was not decisive. It found that councillors who were entitled to be present had not been formally expelled from the meeting and that proceeding in their enforced absence rendered the meeting irregular.
Consequently, the court ruled that the election of both the Mayor and Deputy Mayor could not stand.
The court further dismissed technical objections relating to how the office-bearers had been cited in the application, finding that they were properly before the court and fully aware of the case against them.
Having considered all submissions, the High Court confirmed the Rule nisi, declared the meeting and the elections invalid, and ordered that the status quo prior to 20 May 2025 be restored.
This effectively renders the mayoral position vacant, with the deputy mayor reverting to that office pending a lawful election process.
Costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel where applicable, were awarded against the first and second respondents.
To read the full High Court judgment, click here.
Parliamentary Committees Raise Separate Concerns Over Financial Oversight
The High Court ruling came one day after the Amajuba District Municipality was subjected to intense questioning during a joint parliamentary oversight visit in KwaZulu-Natal by the Portfolio Committee on Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (CoGTA), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, and the Standing Committee on the Auditor-General.
During the visit on Wednesday, 28 January 2026, committees raised concerns over payroll irregularities, after it emerged that two individuals were being paid for a single councillor position.
According to Parliamentary Communications Services:
“It was revealed that two individuals were being paid for a single councillor position, resulting in wasteful and potentially unlawful expenditure. This irregularity exposes significant weaknesses in financial oversight and administrative accountability at the municipality.”
Furthermore, the committees emphasised that the Municipal Manager, as accounting officer, bore responsibility for ensuring proper payments and adherence to council resolutions.
At the same time, the Mayor, Speaker and Deputy Mayor were criticised for providing inconsistent information regarding councillor numbers and payroll matters.
The committees called on the MEC responsible for Cooperative Governance to conduct a thorough investigation.
In response, the Municipal Manager committed to recouping overpayments and implementing stricter payroll controls. The committees made it clear that individuals responsible for authorising improper payments would face consequences.
Beyond payroll concerns, committees also raised issues relating to absenteeism, fleet and diesel management, reliance on consultants, water and infrastructure challenges, and a disconnect between budget expenditure and service delivery outcomes.
The municipality has been instructed to submit a detailed post-audit action plan within three months, outlining corrective measures, timelines, and accountability mechanisms aimed at restoring proper governance and safeguarding public funds.
With all of this in mind, what are your thoughts? Let us know below.
Do not forget to read, Newcastle Municipality Under Fire Over R65m Plant Hire, R28m Toilets and R14m Road, if you missed it.
FAQs
The High Court ruled their election unconstitutional due to an inquorate and irregular council meeting.
Payroll irregularities, poor oversight, and governance failures were highlighted.
The meeting and elections were declared invalid and the previous status quo restored.
The municipality must stabilise leadership and submit corrective governance and financial action plans.
2 Responses
Removed with millions in their pockets. They shoud be suspended without pay, followed by forencic investigations and if found guilty be jailed and money obtained unlawfully should be paid back in full and assests seized and sold
Wow this municipality is a mess between incompetence and corruption and down right thieving it will never change get rid of them all charge them and allow Eskom to bill our account as and we will pay them the same with the water it will then be able to get a qualified contractor to do our roads and mantainance in the town we don’t need those sticky fingers anymore