Ikanyeng is seeking an interdict to halt the implementation of the minister’s decision, arguing that it unlawfully reinstates councillor Kabo Ketshogile as council chairperson despite a council resolution that removed him from office through a vote of no confidence.The dispute stems from events that unfolded this month when a section of councillors passed a motion of no confidence against Ketshogile, who was then serving as chairperson of the PDC. The fallout from the motion prompted Minister Motshegwa to suspend the full council and all its committees pending the resolution of the matter.However, the controversy deepened after councillors subsequently elected Ikanyeng as chairperson. In court papers filed before the High Court, Ikanyeng maintains that he is the lawful holder of the office, having been elected in accordance with Section 20(10) of the relevant legislation and sworn into office on June 2, 2026.According to Ikanyeng, the minister later overturned that position through a letter dated June 10, 2026, directing the council to resume its operations immediately on the basis that Ketshogile remained the legitimate chairperson. “By his letter dated June 10, 2026, the Minister directed the council to resume sitting with immediate effect on the basis that Ketshogile, being the fourth respondent, remains chairperson. By his memorandum, the council secretary, being the second respondent, communicated to all councillors that Ketshogile remains in office as chairperson and that he has been directed to implement the Minister’s directive,” reads part of Ikanyeng’s court application. Consequently, Ikanyeng argues that once the council resumes its activities under the minister’s directive, all council business will be conducted under the purported authority of a person who does not lawfully occupy the office of chairperson.He contends that decisions taken during this period would have far-reaching consequences. These, according to him, include the issuance of official correspondence, the holding of council meetings and the adoption of resolutions, all under the authority of a chairperson whose legitimacy is being challenged before the courts. Moreover, Ikanyeng argues that such actions involve critical governance functions that cannot easily be reversed once implemented. He warns that allowing the directive to stand could create administrative confusion and undermine the legality of decisions taken by the council. According to the application, the council secretary has already begun implementing the minister’s directive. As a result, he said, council records, internal administrative systems, official correspondence and public communications are expected to be updated to reflect Ketshogile as the chairperson. Ikanyeng further argues that the minister exceeded the powers granted to him under the law. Central to his case is Section 85 of the Act, which he says allows the minister only to reject, vary or amend a council resolution under specific circumstances. He maintains that Motshegwa did not exercise any of those powers. Instead, the minister allegedly went beyond the provisions of the Act by setting aside the council’s resolution and reinstating Ketshogile. “Section 85 of the Act empowers the Minister to reject, vary or amend a resolution. The Minister did not reject, vary or amend the March 26, 2026, resolution. He purported to set it aside and reinstate Ketshogile. Those powers are not found anywhere in the Act. The exercise of a power that does not exist is a jurisdictional error rendering the act void ab initio,” Ikanyeng argues in his court papers.Furthermore, he contends that the legal conditions required before Section 85 can be invoked were not satisfied. He argues that the minister’s intervention is permitted only where considerations relating to financial implications, public interest or national interest arise.In addition, Ikanyeng warns that failure by the court to intervene urgently would result in Ketshogile immediately enjoying all the powers, privileges and benefits associated with the office of chairperson. He says this would occur not through a court order or any process established by law, but solely through an administrative directive that lacks a legal foundation.For that reason, Ikanyeng is seeking interim relief from the High Court pending the final determination of the matter. He wants the court to issue a rule nisi and grant both interim and final orders restraining the implementation of the minister’s directive. Meanwhile, the respondents shall file notice of opposition, answering affidavit and notice of points in limine, if any, on or before June 22, 2026. While Ikanyeng is expected to file the replying affidavit from the respondent on or before June 24, 2026.
