This article may contain graphic and/or adult content unsuitable for minors and sensitive readers.
Judgment was delivered in the Bitou take-over court case following an attempt by local ANC councillors to topple the DA-led municipality and remove its leadership.
On June 20 this year six ANC councillors along with deputy mayor and COPE member Adam van Rhyner called for a special council meeting to serve a motion of no confidence in among others mayor Memory Booysen.
Bitou speaker Annelise Olivier however rejected the request to convene the meeting on July 1 as she claimed it was against the municipality's rules of order. She then turned to the Western Cape High Court to stop the meeting from taking place. The matter was however postponed indefinitely.
Judge Dennis Davis said on Tuesday that this application had now become moot and therefore found it not appropriate to order costs.
The ANC councillors and Van Rhymer however filed a counter application on July 2 seeking an order to force Olivier to convene the meeting. They claimed it was in fact in line with the rules of order and asked the court to set aside the municipality's decision to declare Van Rhymer's seat vacant and declare that he remains a councillor until lawfully unseated. They also sought an order to stop the replacement of Van Rhyner.
Because the court was in recess at the time, the matter was postponed and on July 29 the court ordered that the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) not fill the purported vacancy in respect Van Rhyner's seat.
In the meantime one of the ANC councillors, Nolan Stuurman, resigned which has led to a by-election to be held on September 17.
Davis said the case therefore raised a question as to the boundaries over which courts should cross in order to engage with, what on the face of it, appeared to be a political dispute.
Because of the resignation of the Stuurman the entire purpose of a meeting to debate a motion of no confidence now depends on the outcome of a by-election.
Davis said if the DA won the by-election, it would have seven of the thirteen seats in council and a motion of no confidence would then be doomed to fail. He added if the motion of no confidence was heard before the by-election, it would also be doomed to fail as there would be six DA councillors, who together with the casting vote of Olivier would be able to reject such a motion.
"In my view this is not a case which requires the intervention of a court at this stage," Davis said.
"Accordingly, given the nature, this case is not one where a court should exercise discretion in favour of granting any form of relief. Alternative relief is clearly available to the applicants. If, after the by-election, the applicants genuinely constitute a majority of councillors, they can simply request another meeting. If the first respondent (Olivier) refuses, the applicants will be free to approach this court for the kind of relief which they have now sought."
Davis therefore dismissed the counter application with costs.
