Municipalities in South Africa are constitutionally mandated to ensure the delivery of essential services and to uphold basic rights enshrined in the Constitution. When they fail to fulfil these obligations—whether through mismanagement or sheer neglect—the consequences go beyond poor governance. They amount to a constitutional crisis that threatens the well-being, dignity, and rights of citizens. In such cases, the courts are not just permitted but obligated to intervene.
The rise of judicial oversight in local government
In a recent case, Afriforum NPC v Ngwathe Local Municipality and 14 Others, a non-profit company and community organisation took legal action to address systemic service delivery failures by the Ngwathe Municipality. The case laid bare the depth of municipal dysfunction, with issues ranging from water and sewage crises to financial collapse and managerial instability.
The applicant did not simply ask the court to recognise the crisis—they asked the court to step into a monitoring role, ensuring that appropriate measures would be taken to rectify the service delivery issues.
The application was brought against the municipal respondents, the provincial respondents such as the Premier, Executive Council, the MEC for COGTA, MEC for Finance, MEC for Economic, Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs and national respondents.
The relief sought in the application papers was a declarator that:
- The Municipality breached its constitutional, legislative and regulatory obligations towards its residents.
- Jurisdictional facts supported the mandatory provincial intervention in the affairs of the Municipality.
- The provincial respondents failed to carry out their obligations and intervene in the affairs of the Municipality effectively and resolve the Municipality’s issues.
It was further sought that the provincial respondents be directed to intervene in the affairs of the Municipality. Lastly, a structural interdict was sought wherein the provincial respondents were ordered to submit quarterly reports to the court on their progress on the implementation of the order and the prospects of the Municipality being able to execute its own functions.
The court determined that the Municipality’s dysfunctionality justified provincial intervention. Due to poor service delivery, managerial instability and the financial crisis, the Municipality was ordered into administration. The court found that it was a suitable case for the court to act as a watchdog given the historical conduct of the provincial respondents’ recalcitrance and unresponsiveness. As a result, the court granted a structural interdict which required the provincial respondents to, amongst other things:
- Implement a recovery plan to meet the Municipality’s basic services and financial commitments.
- Dissolve the Municipality and appoint an administrator until a new council has been elected.
- Approve a temporary budget for the recovery plan to provide for the continued functionality of the Municipality.
This case marks a turning point in how courts may approach chronic service delivery failures. It demonstrates that when there is failure to comply with legislation, courts must uphold constitutional principles. The judgment sends a clear message: Municipal collapse is not just a governance issue—it is also a legal one, and one that warrants judicial oversight.
As more communities across South Africa face similar crises, this case may serve as a blueprint for legal accountability. The court’s willingness to issue a structural interdict signals an evolving judicial appetite to play an active role in ensuring that constitutional obligations are fulfilled—especially where oversight has failed.