Volume 11, Issue 1 February 2009

There are a number of legislative grounds upon which a municipal manager may reject a tender bid. One such ground is provided in the Municipal Supply Chain Management Regulations. Regulation 38(1) provides that a municipality’s supply chain management policy must provide measures for combating abuse of the supply chain management system. Furthermore, it must enable the municipal manager to reject the bid of a bidder who, during the past five years, has failed to perform satisfactorily on a previous contract with the municipality or municipal entity or any other organ of state. This applies only if written notice has been given to that bidder that its performance was unsatisfactory.

This judgment deals with the appointment of a municipal manager in a district municipality. It contains the strongest signal yet that the law condemns the practice of appointing municipal managers on the basis of political affiliation rather than suitability for the post.

South Africa has one of the most progressive legislative and policy frameworks for water services in the world, which includes a constitutional right of access to water and a national free basic water (FBW) policy. Within this framework, water is conceived of as a social good and a vital part of poverty alleviation within the broader developmental mandate of government. However, when it comes to implementation at the local government level, where water services are located, the reality is quite different.

Inequality between the sexes is slowing down transformation in South Africa. This inequality is compounded by the fact that women disproportionately bear the brunt of the devastating impact which HIV has on communities and families. The HIV and AIDS epidemic continues to hit the most productive part of the population the hardest. The result is that it also impacts negatively on local government service delivery, in that municipalities have to meet the increasing demand for social services.

When first confronted by the facts of the case in The Municipality of the City of Cape Town v Reader and Others, one is tempted to think that it is yet another judgment dealing with the notorious question of whether property owners have a ‘right to a view’. This is especially true as the facts bear a striking similarity to earlier judgments that have dealt with this issue. This judgment, however, stops short of deciding whether the applicants are in fact entitled to ‘a view’. It deals rather with the question of whether the appeal procedures set out in section 62 of the Municipal Systems Act afford interested third parties (very often neighbours) affected by the planning decisions of a municipality an adequate platform from which to appeal those decisions.