More punches fly in Sol Plaatje vs Matlala court fight

SOL PLAATJE Municipality, executive mayor Martha Bartlett and Speaker Dipuo Peters – who were slapped with another legal cost order – have filed an urgent appeal against a court ruling handed down on February 6 that enabled municipal manager Thapelo Matlala to return to work.

They have requested that the matter be heard before a full bench of the Northern Cape High Court.

Matlala was placed on precautionary suspension on September 16, 2025, following an investigation into allegations of misconduct.

He approached the court to enforce an order that found his suspension on January 8 to be “unlawful, null and void”.

Acting Judge Thandisa Tyuthuza on Friday ruled that Matlala could return to work, pending the finalisation of the outcome of the appeal against her decision made on January 16, which permitted him to resume his duties with immediate effect.

Matlala’s legal representative, Advocate Johann Olivier, pointed out that an application for leave to appeal – and even further to the Supreme Court of Appeal – was a lengthy process.

He argued that the application for leave to appeal was a delaying tactic and had “no prospects of success on appeal”, as it did not comply with the regulations.

The legal representative for Sol Plaatje Municipality, Bartlett and Peters, Senior Advocate Patrick Ngutshana, said Matlala would suffer no prejudice or violation of his rights as he was suspended with full pay.

He acknowledged that the suspension on January 8 was not compliant with the regulations, but pointed out that this did not invalidate the decision to suspend him.

Sol Plaatje without a municipal manager at the helm

In her judgment, Tyuthuza stated that Matlala felt he was entitled to be at work, especially as his suspension had effectively lapsed.

“He argues that there is a real possibility that the appeal will not succeed and that even if it were to succeed, which is extremely unlikely, the suspension would have run its course.

“He submitted that the disciplinary hearing is set to start in March and that there is no reason to keep him suspended only because there is an ongoing disciplinary hearing.”

She pointed out that the municipal manager played a pivotal role in the effective functioning of the municipality.

“Should the order granted on January 16 remain inoperative pending the appeal process, Sol Plaatje Municipality will be without a municipal manager for months, as there is no indication as to when the appeal will be adjudicated or the appeal process concluded.

“It is undisputed that the respondents’ conduct is in contravention of the regulations and cannot be overlooked or allowed to stand merely because an appeal process is under way.”

Tyuthuza further noted that no evidence was presented to the court to support claims that Matlala’s return to the workplace resulted in intimidation.

Matlala's dignity ‘violated’

“It has been accepted that suspension prejudicially impacts on Matlala’s freedom to work and dignity. The harm that the applicant suffers pending the finalisation of the disciplinary hearing is not financial because he receives his salary during the suspension. The irreparable harm that he suffers has to do with his dignity and freedom to work.”

She stated that, in the interests of safeguarding the public purse, Bartlett and Peters would once again be held personally liable for the legal costs.

In court papers, Sol Plaatje Municipality, Bartlett and Peters stated that it was “grossly unfair and irregular” for the court to pre-empt their application for leave to appeal.

They also vehemently opposed the personal cost order.