^{The Supreme Court of Appeal set aside Naledi’s Municipal Manager appointment and ordered key office-bearers to personally pay the appeal costs. What does that actually mean for governance, money, and service delivery in our town? The VIP Team has broken the judgement down in as comprehensively as possible—who did what, what the judges found, and what happens next.}

^{Now we want to hear from you. Do you think the outcome is fair? Will this improve accountability, or deepen divisions? Did the court’s reasons make sense to you?}

Engage with us on our Facebook Page … and have your say …

Background of the Dispute

The Naledi Local Municipality in North West has been embroiled in a protracted legal battle over the appointment of its Municipal Manager. In March 2023, the Naledi Council convened a special meeting and resolved to appoint Mr. Modisenyane Segapo as Municipal Manager for a third term  . Mr. Segapo had previously served in the post from 2011 to 2016, was briefly reappointed in 2021, and then sought to return after the position was advertised again in late 2022  . However, his latest appointment was immediately challenged by a group of concerned insiders – Thabo Appolus, a municipal Director, at the time, along with Councillors Lorato Setlhake, Lebogang Jacobs, and Vuyiswa Morakile. These applicants filed an urgent court application seeking to nullify Mr. Segapo’s appointment and even to declare the 10 March 2023 council meeting (which approved his hiring) unlawful . They alleged the hiring process was tainted by serious irregularities.

Their concerns were bolstered by the fact that the North West MEC for Cooperative Governance (COGHSTA) had refused to approve Mr. Segapo’s appointment after reviewing the recruitment report, citing multiple procedural and substantive flaws  . (By law, senior municipal appointments must be reported to the provincial government for oversight.) In September 2023, the North West High Court (Mahikeng) agreed with the applicants’ complaints and set aside Mr. Segapo’s appointment, ordering the Naledi Municipality to start a fresh recruitment process for a new Municipal Manager . The municipality’s political leadership – including Mayor Clifton John Groep and Speaker PGC Gulane – instead of accepting this outcome, opted to appeal the decision and fight to keep Mr. Segapo in the post. This set the stage for the recent Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) judgment, which has now definitively resolved the matter.

Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment Highlights

On 14 November 2025, the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein delivered a unanimous judgment dismissing Naledi Local Municipality’s appeal . The SCA’s ruling, penned by Judge Kgoele JA, upheld the High Court’s findings that Mr. Segapo’s appointment was irregular and invalid. In clear terms, the SCA confirmed that the entire recruitment process and appointment could not stand because it failed to comply with legal requirements and the principles of good governance  .

One of the core issues was the participation of Mayor Groep in the hiring process despite an evident conflict of interest. The Mayor had sat on the selection panel that interviewed candidates – a panel he, as Mayor, even chaired – without disclosing his close personal ties to Mr. Segapo. In fact, evidence later emerged that during Mr. Segapo’s earlier tenure as Municipal Manager, he had given jobs or promotions to the Mayor’s relatives (including the Mayor’s twin brother and sister-in-law)  . According to municipal regulations, any panel member with a personal relationship or “indebtedness” to a candidate must disclose it and recuse themselves from the selection panel . Judge Kgoele found that Mayor Groep blatantly failed to do so. The SCA concluded that this **“inept conduct” by the Mayor gravely tarnished the fairness of the recruitment process and “cast doubt on the Mayor’s impartiality”. In other words, the very person overseeing the hiring was perceived to be biased in favor of Mr. Segapo – an unacceptable situation in a public appointment.

The appellate court detailed how these conflicts and irregularities were flagged early on. For example, in November 2022, one of the concerned councillors had emailed the Mayor urging him to step aside from the hiring panel and requesting that an independent recruitment agency be used to ensure fairness  . These warnings went unheeded as the Mayor pressed ahead with the process and the council ultimately voted to appoint Mr. Segapo in March 2023 . The SCA agreed with the lower court that the objecting councillors were justified in challenging this process. It pointed out that the Mayor’s only defense – denying he showed favoritism – was insufficient given the “undisputed claims of nepotistic appointments” benefiting his family. The judges emphasized that even the appearance of a conflict of interest is enough to fatally taint such an appointment, and they stressed that the Naledi Mayor should have, at minimum, disclosed his relationship to Mr. Segapo or recused himself entirely.

Beyond the Mayor’s conduct, the SCA noted other procedural failings. Initially, when the Municipal Manager position was first advertised, only Mr. Segapo and Mr. Appolus (the official who later became a lead applicant in the case) were shortlisted out of eight applicants . Mr. Appolus then withdrew, leaving Mr. Segapo as the sole candidate – a situation that even Mr. Segapo found worrying. In fact, he sought a legal opinion at the time on whether interviewing only one candidate would be proper. The advice given was to re-advertise the post to avoid any perception of bias or an “unfair, anti-competitive” process . The council initially acted on that advice, reopened the applications, and appointed a new panel which interviewed five finalists (with the Mayor again as chair)  . Yet despite this second attempt, allegations of rigging persisted – ranging from the Mayor’s undue influence to irregular interview procedures – culminating in the disputed appointment.

In its judgment, the SCA systematically dismantled the municipality’s legal arguments. The Naledi Municipality had argued, among other things, that the challenging councillors and official lacked legal standing to contest the appointment – contending that only the MEC (provincial government) could invalidate a Municipal Manager’s hiring. The SCA flatly rejected this, citing constitutional principles: every person has the right to approach a court when legality is at stake, and it would be absurd to read the law as barring the very municipal stakeholders affected (employees and councillors) from defending the integrity of their governance  . The court affirmed that the matter was indeed of public interest and urgency, given that it concerned the lawful administration of a municipality  . Judge Kgoele underscored that neither councillors nor the community should passively allow bureaucracy to override legality in their oversight role . This sends a strong message that accountability in local government is a shared responsibility – if something appears illegal or improper, elected council members (and even ordinary citizens) not only have the standing, but arguably a duty, to seek corrective action.

Ultimately, the SCA’s Order upheld the High Court’s decision in full. Mr. Segapo’s appointment remains invalid, and the Naledi Municipal Council must initiate a new, lawful recruitment process for a Municipal Manager . The special council meeting that installed Mr. Segapo was not explicitly set aside (since the High Court hadn’t granted that specific relief), but practically, its key resolution has been nullified. The bottom line is that Naledi Municipality currently has no permanent Municipal Manager in place as a result of the judgment – and it must start over to fill the position, this time following the letter and spirit of the law.

advertisement:

Governance and Accountability Implications

This judgment has significant governance implications for the Naledi Local Municipality and potentially other municipalities. Firstly, it shines a spotlight on the responsibilities and conduct of senior municipal officials. The fact that a Mayor and a Speaker – the very officials meant to uphold good governance – were central players in defending an unlawful appointment is troubling. The SCA’s decision implicitly questions their judgment and ethical conduct. Mayor Groep’s failure to avoid a clear conflict of interest was not just a minor lapse; the court found it undermined the integrity of the entire council decision-making process. Such a rebuke suggests that the Mayor, Speaker, and Mr. Segapo prioritized personal or political considerations over transparent governance. For a municipality, this kind of court-documented misgovernance erodes public trust.

The SCA outcome also reinforces the principle that officials who act outside the law will be held to account. It is relatively rare for courts to impose personal consequences on officials in their official capacities, but in this case the SCA took the extraordinary step of making a personal costs order. By ordering the Speaker (Cllr. Gulane), the Mayor (Cllr. Groep), and Mr. Segapo to pay the legal costs out of their own pockets , the court sent a powerful accountability message. This signals that municipal leaders cannot recklessly abuse processes and expect taxpayers to foot the bill for the fallout. The judgment explicitly noted that the “Municipality has been using public funds since 2023 to support the indefensible” – a scathing commentary on how ratepayers’ money was spent to litigate a losing cause. The personal cost order is a direct response to that: it ensures those responsible bear the consequences, rather than the community.

Another governance aspect highlighted is the role of oversight. The case exemplifies how internal municipal actors and provincial authorities should interact. Here, provincial oversight (the MEC) did flag problems and withheld approval for the appointment, but it was the initiative of local officials and councillors that ultimately drove the matter to resolution. The SCA affirmed that municipal councillors, acting in the public interest, were right to persist in challenging illegalityeven when the bureaucratic processes failed. This precedent empowers councillors and whistle-blowers in local government to act when they see wrongdoing, knowing the courts will back them if their concerns have merit. It’s a reminder that **“people first” governance – as encapsulated by the Batho Pele principle – requires diligence and courage from those within the system to stand up for legality and ethics.

For Naledi’s council, the fallout may not end with the court case. There could be calls for disciplinary action or political consequences for the officials involved. When a court finds that top leaders engaged in unlawful conduct, municipal integrity committees or even higher authorities might step in. At the very least, the Mayor and Speaker face a crisis of confidence. Observers note that this saga has distracted the municipality from service delivery: time and resources were spent in court instead of on community needs. Going forward, Naledi’s leadership is under pressure to demonstrate improved governance. They will need to run the new hiring process by the book, and any further missteps will be met with even less patience from oversight bodies and the public.

Financial Implications of the Case

The financial stakes of this legal battle are a major point of contention. According to local reports, the Naledi Municipality has spent over R20 million in public funds on this case to date . This staggering figure includes legal fees and related costs accumulated through months of court proceedings, appeals, and enforcement actions. For a municipality of Naledi’s size, R20 million is a substantial sum that could have been directed to basic services or infrastructure. The revelation of this expenditure has angered residents and civil society, who view it as fruitless and wasteful expenditure in a town that has other pressing needs (such as persistent electricity and water issues).

The Supreme Court of Appeal was clearly cognizant of this concern. In its judgment, the SCA panel discussed at length who should bear the costs of the litigation. Typically, when a municipality loses a case, the municipality (and by extension its taxpayers) would pay – essentially punishing the public for the officials’ decisions. In this case, however, the court made an exceptional ruling: the Mayor, Speaker, and Mr. Segapo must personally pay the costs of the appeal, including the costs of the failed leave to appeal application . The order even specifies that these costs include the expense of having two counsel (lawyers) on the case, which is often a significant amount. This personal costs order is joint and several, meaning the three individuals are collectively responsible for the bill (if one pays, the others are off the hook for that portion). It is a strong deterrent against misconduct – effectively a judicial statement that “if you misuse the legal system for your own ends, you will pay the price, not the public.”

It’s worth noting that the High Court had initially been asked to prevent the use of municipal funds for defending the case . While that may not have been fully possible during the trial and initial appeal (since the municipality did fund the litigation up to this point), the SCA’s ruling attempts to correct the imbalance retroactively by shifting the final burden onto the officials. This could potentially save Naledi millions – for example, the municipality may recover some of the legal costs already paid out, or at least not incur further costs for the appeal. However, whether the R20 million figure can be recouped is uncertain. The personal cost order applies to the appeal stages, and the municipality’s coffers have already been drained by the earlier proceedings. There may well be public pressure for Naledi to pursue the trio for reimbursement of all wasted funds. The SCA did remark that the officials had been “clinging to the benefit of the fees paid by the Municipality” during this fight, underscoring that public money was used to advance private interests. Recovering such money could involve additional legal processes, but the principle set by the court is clear.

In broader terms, the case highlights the financial accountability of municipal officials. It sets a precedent that personal liability can be imposed when officials act in bad faith or against the public interest. This is significant in South Africa’s local government context, where many municipalities struggle with financial mismanagement. Activists are already pointing to Naledi’s saga as an example of why tighter controls on legal expenditures are needed. Ratepayers should not have to fund lengthy court battles to enforce basic compliance with the law. The hope is that this outcome will make municipal councils think twice before using public funds to defend dubious decisions – especially when those decisions serve a narrow interest rather than the community at large.

Civil Society Reactions

The SCA judgment has been met with widespread approval from civil society in the region. Batho Pele Community Association, a local civic organization that advocates for accountability and better services in Naledi, praised the court’s decision as a victory for good governance. (“Batho Pele” means “People First,” and the group has been vocal about putting community interests ahead of political expediency.) Members of the association and other community activists have long been alarmed by the dysfunction in Naledi Municipality, and they see the court’s intervention as validation of their concerns. The Batho Pele group has reportedly been monitoring this case closely; upon the judgment, they echoed the SCA’s sentiment that public funds should never have been used to “support the indefensible” actions of officials. Representatives of the association urged the municipality to comply fully with the ruling and to hold the implicated officials to account beyond just the court costs – for instance, by investigating whether their conduct violated any ethical or legal duties to the public.

On social media, many residents have been candid in their reactions. For instance, a Facebook user by the name of Caesar Tlhabi directly addressed Mr. Segapo in a public comment, asking whether he had ever afforded his own subordinates the kind of due process that ultimately unseated him – a pointed question suggesting that some feel Mr. Segapo might have ruled the administration in a heavy-handed way. There are also those who voiced support for Mr. Segapo despite the court findings – underscoring that local politics can be complex. On one Facebook thread, some commenters praised Mr. Segapo’s past contributions to the town and lamented that political infighting led to this outcome, indicating a minority view that he was a capable manager caught in power struggles. Mr. Segapo himself, under his personal social media profile (listed as Modisenyane Thompson Segapo), responded to a few messages by thanking certain supporters and asserting that he had always tried to serve the community.

Official Municipal Response and Next Steps

In the wake of the judgment, the Naledi Local Municipality has taken immediate steps to steady its administration. On 17 November 2025, just a few days after the SCA ruling, the Naledi Council held a special meeting and appointed Mrs. D. Munyai as Acting Municipal Manager (also referred to as Head of Administration) . Mrs. Munyai is the municipality’s current Director of Technical Services, a senior official presumably seen as a neutral and capable caretaker. This move ensures that the day-to-day running of the municipality continues with minimal disruption, since Mr. Segapo can no longer occupy the post. The appointment of an acting municipal manager is also in line with the High Court’s directive that a new recruitment process be initiated – it provides interim leadership while the longer process of advertising, interviewing, and hiring a permanent manager takes place.

The municipal leadership’s public communications regarding the judgment have been cautious so far. As of this writing, neither the Mayor nor the Speaker has released a detailed statement about the SCA outcome. The municipality did, however, use its official channels to inform staff and residents of Mrs. Munyai’s interim appointment and to assure them that service delivery will not be affected. It appears the council is tacitly accepting the court’s decision – the swift compliance in appointing an acting MM suggests there is little choice but to abide. Insiders at the municipality indicate that plans are being made to restart the hiring process for the Municipal Manager position in accordance with all legal requirements. This will involve publicly readvertising the vacancy and convening a selection panel that meets the requisite standards (for example, any panel members will have to declare conflicts of interest as the law mandates).

Meanwhile, the individuals at the center of the storm face uncertain futures. Mayor Groep and Speaker Gulane, besides dealing with the personal legal cost order, may also confront political fallout. Opposition parties in the council (and even members of the ruling party who are reform-minded) could push for motions of no confidence or internal disciplinary actions, arguing that the two men brought the municipality into disrepute. However, any such actions will depend on the balance of power in the council and party structures. For Mr. Segapo, the SCA judgment likely marks the end of his tenure in Naledi’s administration. Given the court’s damning findings, it is improbable that he would be reconsidered in the new recruitment process. It is also possible that professional bodies or oversight authorities could review his conduct, though the judgment primarily faults the process and those who enabled it, rather than labelling Mr. Segapo personally as fraudulent (it noted the process was irregular, not that he falsified qualifications or such).

Looking ahead, Naledi Local Municipality has an opportunity to turn the page on this saga. The immediate task is to carry out a fair and transparent hiring process for a permanent Municipal Manager. All eyes will be on how the council manages this – any hint of repeat irregularities would surely draw swift legal challenges again. The municipality will also need to rebuild trust with its residents. Civic groups like Batho Pele Community Association have indicated they will remain vigilant, watching that the “people first” ethos is honored in practice. There may be calls for improved governance measures: for example, training for councillors on ethics and conflicts of interest, or the involvement of independent observers in future appointment processes to prevent undue influence.

In sum, the SCA judgment involving Naledi Local Municipality is a landmark development for the community. It clearly explained why the prior Municipal Manager appointment was unlawful and underscored the importance of integrity in municipal governance . The outcome carries governance lessons – about transparency, rule of law, and accountability – that extend beyond just one town. For the people of Naledi, who have watched this drama unfold over two years, there is hope that their leaders will now refocus on the basics of running the municipality effectively. As one resident remarked on social media, “We expect our officials to serve us, not themselves. Let this be the start of doing things right.” The true test will be whether Naledi’s council can indeed do things right going forward, heeding the court’s verdict and the public’s call for change.

Sources:

• Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment – Naledi Local Municipality & Others v Appolus & Others (122/2024) [2025] ZASCA 171 (14 November 2025)  .

• The Guardian (Taung Daily News) report by O. Maje, “Naledi Local Municipality loses court appeal over Modisenyane Segapo’s irregular appointment” (14 Nov 2025)  .

• High Court judgment summary – Vryburg Independent Post, “Judgment Day: Segapo’s Appointment … Declared Invalid” (19 Sep 2023)  .

• Naledi Local Municipality official update (17 Nov 2025) via Facebook announcement .