The appellants were elected councillors of the Nala Local Municipality. They supported and voted for two council decisions that adversely affected fellow councillors, the first and second respondents. The first decision required the respondents to recuse themselves from council activities pending investigations into a settlement concluded in 1995. This was done without affording them a hearing. The second decision suspended the first respondent without pay for one year for allegedly breaching the council’s code of conduct by suing the municipality for monies owed to her. The Free State High Court reviewed and set aside both decisions for procedural unfairness and lack of authority, and further ordered the appellants to pay the respondents’ legal costs personally (de bonis propriis) on an attorney-and-own-client scale. Leave to appeal was refused by the Supreme Court of Appeal, but granted by the Constitutional Court on the issue of the personal costs order only.
The appeal was upheld. The order of the High Court directing the appellants to pay costs de bonis propriis was set aside, including the rule nisi. The Nala Local Municipality was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs in the High Court on the scale as between attorney and client.
This case is a leading authority on the scope of statutory immunity enjoyed by municipal councillors under section 28 of the Municipal Structures Act. It affirms that councillors are protected from personal civil liability, including adverse costs orders, for conduct that forms part of legitimate council deliberations, even where the resulting decisions are unlawful. The judgment reinforces democratic principles of free and robust debate in local government and clarifies limits on judicial interference with the legislative and executive functions of municipalities.