The MM responds to the DA’s media statement

It’s a war of words… The absence of blood is appreciated

Decision makers turn to O!O first for what’s really happening in Eden
… You’re reading, aren’t you!?
Advertise on O!O – click here for details

Click to follow @DrewanBaird on twitter

Drewan Baird. Oudtshoorn. 5 June 2013. 15h35. Here it is…

Stoffels v van Wyk High Court case retained due to congested court roll

The Deputy Judge President, Madam Justice Jeanette Traverso of the Western Cape High Court retained the file of the Stoffels vs. van Wyk case today, stating that the rolls are currently congested, and that she would in the course of her duties allocate the matter to an available Judge.

Meanwhile, the Oudtshoorn Municipality received media enquiries stating that the DA caucus issued a media statement this morning, to the effect, inter alia, that Cape High Court Deputy Judge President Jeanette Traverso dismissed the application by Speaker Johannes Stoffels to void the meeting of 17 councillors after the Council Meeting of May 31 was closed.

This is not true.

Traverso this afternoon confirmed to the Speaker’s legal team that she is still attempting to find an available Judge. There can be no doubt whatsoever: the matter had not been dismissed.

The ANC/NPP/Icosa Alliance during the Council Meeting of May 31, urged the DA, Cope, and the five ANC councillors siding with the DA/Cope Alliance, to act in accordance with democratic principles to avoid expensive legal proceedings. The continued strong-arm tactics and political grandstanding of the DA/Cope alliance and its ANC supporters at the time, created a level of chaos which left the Speaker no choice but to close the meeting. The subsequent meeting of 17 councillors further left the Speaker no choice but to seek relief in the High Court for the account of the rogue councillors.

The Acting Municipal Manager, Mr Ron Lottering, this morning received a request for a Special Council Meeting on June 19, signed by 12 councillors – the 11 DA members and the Cope member.

This matter will be dealt with expeditiously and in accordance with Oudtshoorn’s Rules of Order and relevant legislation.

However, the Speaker is calling a Special Council Meeting for Friday, June 7, to consider the Budget; the IDP; and the appointment of a Municipal Manager, well in advance of the requested June 19 Special Council Meeting.

________________________________________________________
DREWAN BAIRD COMMUNICATIONSensaytional – 076 349 6316
Making sure they see it your way
________________________________________________________

Click here to receive updates | Advertise on O!O | Home

5 thoughts on “The MM responds to the DA’s media statement

  1. Heh Stem ek werk by geen munisipaliteit of staatsdepartement nie. Eks ‘n belastingbetaler in twee dorpe en besit my eie besigheid. Jys ou suur k.k wat natuurlik iets uit die politieke -toutrekkery daar in Die Hoorn kry. Totsiens jou ou drommel.

  2. @Andrew and Stem. I actually took the time to read through the court papers and the transcription of the council meeting today and I am glad and sorry at the same time for doing it. Glad because it is now crystal clear to me who caused, and in fact insisted to go to court, who moreover arrogantly demanded court action even after Stoffels’s lawyer attempted to prevent it by spelling out the blatant illegalities of their actions and almost begging them to abandon their unlawful “takeover”. Glad because I see that Mr. Mills asked for a cost order against the councillors personally and against the DA. I quote:

    “My submission is that a calculated and cynical defiance of the law by
    elected representatives warrants nothing less than a punitive costs
    order to be exacted against councillors in their personal capacities. It would be grossly unfair for the people of Oudtshoorn to pick up the tab
    for the Respondents’ cynical defiance of the law.”

    and

    “….the Respondents took the position that I should approach the High Court
    with my objections to their plainly unlawful manoeuvre. But this is not
    the way to set up a so-called “test case”. At minimum, a potential
    litigant wishing to conduct itself in a manner that appears unlawful
    under the law as it stands should first obtain and present a formal
    opinion of counsel….”

    I urge everyone to read the papers published earlier on OO, or at least the transcription of the meeting. You will probably like me be overwhelmed with a feeling of sadness afterwards, realizing how grown men can act, but at least your eyes will be wide open.

  3. Andrew. Na aanleiding van jou snotterige, beterwetige uit die hoogte antwoord is ek verseker van een ding. Jy is een van die nikswerd trogvreters wat die belastingbetaler se geld sit en mors. Waarskynlik een van die mees onlange aanstellings wat buite die organogram en sonder enige advertering gedoen is. My vraag was in elkgeval nie aan jou gerig nie. Jou repliek is kenmerkend van “amptenare” wat wol oor die moeggeploegde belastinbetalers se oe trek.

  4. Stem lees “The case against the DA “Takeover” daarna lees jy die Notice of Motion asook die affidavit. Dan kyk jy wie is die applikante en die Verweerders. Okay het jy dit nou? Sharp sharp!

  5. Mnr. U sktyf oor Stoffels versus Van Wyk. Ek neem aan die here dra ook hulle eie onderskeie regskostes? Of hoe?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s