The legal dispute between the Democratic Alliance (DA) and the eThekwini Municipality over the recent appointment of three executive directors is set to proceed in February 2026.

The DA initially approached the Durban High Court on an urgent basis, seeking an interim interdict referred to as Part A to restrain the eThekwini Municipality Council, Mayor Cyril Xaba, and Municipality Manager Musa Mbhele from implementing the municipal council’s decision of November 13, 2025. 

This decision appointed Lindokuhle Mkhize, Cyril Bhekinkosi Mkhize, and Ednick Msweli to senior roles.

Lindokuhle was appointed as the executive director of Operations Management, Bhekinkosi as the executive director of Public Safety, and Msweli as the executive director of Technical Services.

The application, or notice of motion, listed the municipal council, the mayor, the municipal manager, the three newly appointed directors, and the KZN MEC for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs as respondents.

In addition to the urgent relief, the party also sought a main order referred to as Part B to review and set aside the appointments, declaring them invalid and inconsistent with the Constitution.

However, the municipality opposed the interim relief sought in Parts A and B. Advocate Griffiths Madonsela SC, representing the municipality, argued before the High Court that the Part A relief was extraordinary, misconceived in law, and unsustainable on the facts.

“A mere claim of illegality of a decision does not establish urgency. If it could, all applications for judicial review would be urgent, even if an alleged violation of a constitutional right on its own does not establish urgency,” Madonsela argued. 

The senior counsel further argued that the court cannot interdict something that has already happened, questioning the timing of the DA’s notice of motion, which was filed after the three senior managers had already assumed their duties.

“The applicant has a full review under Part B. That is the proper, adequate, and constitutionally appropriate remedy, and nothing prevents the applicant from pursuing it. In fact, the nature of the dispute makes it ideally suited to review proceedings, not urgent interdictory relief,” he stated.

Following an agreement between both parties, the DA opted not to pursue the determination of the urgent interim relief sought in Part A of its application.

“It is recorded that the applicant (DA) will not seek the determination of the relief sought in part A of its application,” read court papers. 

Judge Murray Pitman ordered that both parties should approach the Judge President for the allocation of the matter. He ordered all lawyers to be available for the hearing of Part B of the matter on February 18, 19, and 20 next year. 

The judge also set the deadlines for the parties to file their affidavits and arguments concerning Part B, ordering that “the costs of Part A of the application shall stand over for later determination in Part B.”

The municipality took the ‘abandonment’ of part A as a victory. In a statement, mayoral spokesperson Mluleki Mtungwa claimed the “sudden reversal reaffirms the municipality’s long-held position that the party is not acting in the best interests of eThekwini residents”.

“Its actions appear aimed at destabilising the municipality and obstructing service delivery,” he said. 

Mtungwa emphasised that the appointments of the trio fully complied with all legal and procedural requirements. 

Conversely, the DA’s mayoral candidate in eThekwini, Haniff Hoosen, maintained that the party did not abandon its application.

He asserted: “The statement by the municipality is clearly designed to confuse and spread misinformation.”

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za

Source link