- The court affirms that contracts remain valid until set aside by a court, not by officials.
- An unlawful instruction from the MEC exposes serious governance risks in municipal decision-making.
- Failure to follow due process results in personal harm and punitive costs.
A municipality cannot cancel an employment contract simply because it later believes the appointment was flawed or unlawful.
This was the central issue before the High Court in the Western Cape, which had to decide whether Oudtshoorn Municipality acted lawfully when it terminated a senior employee’s contract on the basis of an instruction that carried no legal authority.
The dispute arose after the employee was appointed as Director of Corporate Services on a permanent basis and reorganised his life around that position, only for his employment to be abruptly terminated weeks later. The Municipal Council and Municipal Manager relied on a directive from the MEC for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning, Anton Bredell, who had declared the appointment invalid.
Background and parties
The employee accepted a permanent appointment in December 2025 and formally signed an indefinite employment contract in January 2026. At the time, he was living in Pretoria while his minor children were in Oudtshoorn, facing possible exclusion from school due to unpaid fees.
Relying on the security of his new position, he paid over R17,000 toward arrears school fees of more than R34,000, secured his children’s return to school, terminated his lease in Pretoria and relocated to Oudtshoorn.
Less than a month later, the Oudtshoorn Municipal Council resolved to terminate his employment, and the Municipal Manager implemented that decision. The termination was based on a letter from MEC Anton Bredell, who claimed that the applicant’s BCom Accounting degree was not a relevant qualification and declared the appointment null and void.
The municipality’s position and procedural failure
Despite relying on the MEC’s directive, the municipality failed to defend its decision in court. It filed no answering affidavit, ignored a court-ordered deadline and did not appear at the hearing.
In law, this had a decisive consequence. Judge M Francis stated, “The matter therefore proceeds on the uncontested facts set out in the applicant’s founding affidavit.”
This meant the applicant’s version stood uncontested, leaving the court with no justification offered by the municipality for the dismissal.
Meanwhile, the MEC made a critical concession. He acknowledged that he had no statutory authority to instruct a municipal council to terminate an appointment and that any such directive would be ultra vires. Despite this, the municipality continued to rely on that instruction.
The rule of law and the prohibition on self-help
The court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of administrative law. Even if a decision appears unlawful, it remains valid until it is set aside by a court.
Judge Francis held, “The decision to terminate the contract without a court order, based on a procedurally invalid instruction, constitutes impermissible self-help.”
The municipality’s actions were therefore unlawful because it had attempted to undo a binding employment contract without first obtaining judicial intervention.
The court’s legal test and findings
The court applied the well-established requirements for an interim interdict, assessing whether the applicant had shown a prima facie right, irreparable harm, a balance of convenience and absence of an alternative remedy.
On the facts, the court found the applicant’s case to be particularly strong. Judge Francis stated, “The applicant’s right is not merely open to some doubt; it is strongly established.”
The court also accepted that the harm extended beyond financial loss. The applicant faced homelessness, an inability to support his children and a serious disruption to their education.
Judge Francis emphasised this human impact. The judge said, “The disruption to his family life and his children’s education is a harm that money cannot undo.”
Balance of convenience and public interest
The court found that granting relief would simply restore the position that existed before the unlawful termination, while refusing it would allow the municipality to benefit from its own wrongful conduct.
Judge Francis stressed, “The public interest in ensuring that organs of state act lawfully and do not take the law into their own hands strongly favours the grant of relief.”
The order and consequences
The court suspended the Municipal Council’s resolution of 29 January 2026 as well as the Municipal Manager’s decision of 2 February 2026, pending the outcome of a full review.
This means the dismissal cannot take effect until a court determines the lawfulness of those decisions.
In a strong rebuke, the court ordered both the Municipal Manager and the Municipal Council to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judge Francis criticised their conduct, stating, “This sequence of events demonstrates a pattern of disregard for both the law and this Court’s processes.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
