Fihlani v Port St Johns Local Municipality and Others; Port St Johns Local Municipality and Others v Fihlani and Others

Mr Mluleki Fihlani was appointed as Municipal Manager of the Port St Johns Local Municipality in January 2023. On 22 November 2024 he was placed on precautionary suspension pending an investigation into alleged serious misconduct. The investigation was completed and tabled before council on 22 January 2025. Council resolved to extend his suspension pending a disciplinary hearing, which was required to commence before 22 February 2025. The disciplinary hearing did not commence within that period. When Mr Fihlani attempted to return to work after the expiry of the suspension period, he was prevented from doing so on the basis that his suspension had allegedly been extended. He launched an urgent application challenging the lawfulness of the extension. The municipality opposed the application and brought a counter-application challenging the constitutionality of regulation 6(6) of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers, 2010, which prohibits the extension of a precautionary suspension beyond three months.

The court declared that Mr Fihlani’s suspension terminated on 21 February 2025, reviewed and set aside the council’s decision to extend the suspension, and ordered that he be allowed to return to work immediately as Municipal Manager. The municipality was interdicted from unlawfully preventing him from performing his duties. The counter-application challenging the constitutionality of regulation 6(6) was dismissed. Costs were awarded against the municipality, including the costs of two counsel.

The judgment affirms the strict application of regulation 6(6) of the Local Government: Disciplinary Regulations for Senior Managers and reinforces that precautionary suspensions of senior municipal officials lapse automatically if disciplinary hearings do not commence within three months. It confirms that municipalities cannot extend such suspensions unilaterally and must act within the bounds of the regulatory framework. The case is significant for clarifying municipal accountability, reinforcing the rule of law, and rejecting an expansive view of local government autonomy that undermines nationally prescribed labour standards.