EKURHULENI Metropolitan Municipality (EMM) topped the list of legal fees as Gauteng Municipalities spent R63-million in legal fees.
Ekurhuleni spokesperson Sam Modiba told the RECORD, “EMM, in carrying out its constitutional mandate, is sometimes faced with claims from individuals or business which are inevitable given nature of the environment we operate in.
“The municipality also has to resort to legal process to enforce laws and governance. The EMM budgets for legal expenditure as part of its budgetary process.”
The legal costs incurred are made up of the costs incurred in defending claims against EMM, costs of enforcing the town planning scheme, bylaws, and building regulations, eviction of unlawful occupiers and payment of claims where the Municipality had to settle a matter.
Modiba also mentioned that there were 696 court cases against the Municipality which represent actions instituted by EMM.
“It is always looking at limiting legal expenditure. Currently a process is in progress in terms of which it is going to establish Municipal Courts to deal with bylaw infringements etc. This would assist in curbing legal costs.
“EMM also looks at other options of dealing with claims other than litigation, such as settlement where appropriate. Beyond this there has been some engagement with the legal fraternity in a move to pursue the route of dispute resolution options instead of court cases,” said Modiba.
The Municipality has been engaging with legal practitioners from different organizations, including the Public Protector, Socio-Economic Right Institute of South Africa (SERI), Human Rights Commission; Wits School of law, among others to explore cost effective ways of settling legal battles.
The result from this process is that the Municipality is investigating the possibility of establishing a dispute resolution unit which will specifically deal with matters with legal implications, while also being mindful that some cases will inevitably reach the courts.
When Sam Modiba was asked whether the Municipality had received a disclaimer in the last few years he said, “EMM has not received a disclaimer arising from legal expenditure, furthermore in the financial year ending June 2012 the Municipality had for the fourth consecutive year received an unqualified audit opinion.”
Modiba was also asked to explain, in the Berg vs Flusk and EMM case, how much money was spent exactly on those legal fees and why, he responded by saying, “On the Berg vs Flusk enquiry – we have taken note of the court’s ruling on this matter and are currently studying the judgment so as to determine a way forward, as such we cannot go into the details of the case.”
