The Baphiring Communal Property Association has suffered a legal defeat after the Gauteng High Court dismissed its urgent application to remove its chairman, Dire Segatlhe, and freeze the organisation’s bank accounts.
Acting Judge TJ Bruinders ruled earlier this week that the association’s executive committee had acted unconstitutionally when they removed Segatlhe from his position in January.
The executive committee had sought urgent interim relief to freeze its two Standard Bank accounts and prevent Segatlhe and the treasurer, Philia Mtotoba, from operating them, pending a main application to declare his removal valid.
The court action came as a result of serious allegations that we made against Segatlhe’s leadership and his handling of financial resources.
According to court papers, the executive committee served him with a suspension notice containing multiple charges.
These included failure to act under available powers, failure to act in the best interests of the association, failure to avoid conflicts of interest, and misappropriation of corporate opportunities.
Segatlhe is also accused of incurring unauthorised expenses and failing to account for expenditures.
The executive committee removed Segatlhe on January 25 under clauses 12.5 and 12.6 of the association’s constitution.
However, Judge Bruinders found this was the wrong procedure.
Segatlhe remains chairman
Clause 12.5 only allows removal for two specific reasons: failing to attend three consecutive executive meetings or being convicted under the Communal Property Association Act. Neither applied to Segatlhe’s case.
The court found that the serious allegations of breach of fiduciary duty should have been handled under clause 12.4, which requires the executive committee to recommend removal to the general membership for a decision, rather than acting alone.
“The executive committee cannot remove for a reason other than those described in clause 12.5,” the judge ruled.
“It ignored its constitution and purported to terminate membership under a provision regulating removal for another reason.”
The ruling means Segatlhe remains chairman with full authority to operate the association’s bank accounts. His removal is considered invalid and unconstitutional.
The court noted there was no objective evidence supporting the reasons cited for removal under clause 12.5 and that the association had failed to establish a case for their declaratory application.
