Plettenberg Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association and Another v Bitou Municipality and Others

The Plettenberg Bay Ratepayers and Residents Association (First Applicant) and its chairperson (Second Applicant) sought judicial review of a resolution passed by the Bitou Municipality (First Respondent) on 11 June 2020. The resolution approved leasing a vehicle for the Executive Mayor (cost not exceeding R700,000) and extending the existing lease agreement for the Deputy Executive Mayor's vehicle until the end of his term. The resolution was taken during the COVID-19 pandemic, when austerity measures were in place. The Applicants contended that the provision of vehicles constituted an impermissible benefit to the political office bearers. The CFO had prepared a report citing the MFMA and the Municipal Cost Containment Regulations of 2019 as the relevant legislative framework.

• Whether the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 20 of 1998 and the 2020 Determination are the correct legislative authorities governing a municipal council's decision to procure/lease vehicles for political office bearers.
• Whether the resolution to lease vehicles for the Executive Mayor and Deputy Executive Mayor constituted unlawful action.
• Whether the Applicants had made out a proper case for judicial review based on the principle of legality or PAJA.

The application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

A municipal council's decision to procure or lease vehicles for the official use of political office bearers is an act of acquisition of capital assets, not an act of remuneration. The authority for such procurement arises from section 156 of the Constitution and the Local Government: Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000, not from the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act 20 of 1998 and its Determinations. Where an applicant for judicial review bases its entire case on incorrect legislative authority, the application must fail.

The court expressed concern that had the Applicants properly grounded their case on the Cost Containment Regulations, they may have had prospects of success, as there were indications the Municipality may not have complied with all the requirements of the Regulations (such as providing information on service delivery backlogs, affordability, and having proper policies in place). The court also noted conflicting provisions between the 2020 Determination (suggesting municipal vehicles should only be used in extraordinary circumstances) and the Cost Containment Regulations (which set a purchase ceiling and appeared to anticipate routine procurement of vehicles for political office bearers). The court suggested these conflicting provisions needed clarification and correction. The court warned the Municipality not to view its success complacently, as interested parties are legally empowered to hold them accountable.

This case clarifies the distinction between municipal procurement/acquisition decisions and remuneration decisions, establishing that the Remuneration of Public Office Bearers Act is not the governing legislative framework for municipal vehicle procurement. It confirms that municipal councils derive their authority to procure assets for official use directly from the Constitution and the Systems Act. The case also highlights the importance of properly identifying the correct legislative authority when bringing judicial review applications.