---

·   Steve Tshwete Local Municipality manager, Mandla Mnguni, wanted to see former CFO, David Mogofe’s pension frozen pending a civil claim ·   The court has dismissed Mnguni’s application and found no evidence of wrongdoing against Mogofe ·   No allegations of fraud and theft in a forensic report were  sustainable against Mogofe

---

Sizwe sama Yende

---

A litigious municipal manager in Mpumalanga has lost another court case in which he tried to attach the pension of a former chief finance officer.

Steve Tshwete Local Municipality manager Mandla Mnguni’s decision to claim R6.2 million from former CFO, David Mogofe, and a security company in the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court in Middelburg was seen as a personal vendetta.

Mogofe had no powers to authorise a payment above R200 000 without a municipal manager signing it off. At the time the payment was made to Masenyeletje and Security Services (Ply) Ltd for work done during a union strike, there was an acting municipal manager, and Mnguni had not been appointed.

Mnguni then charged Mogofe for the payment and other charges when he became municipal manager. Mogofe received an offer at the Emfuleni Local Municipal in Vanderbiljpark, Gauteng, and left Steve Tshwete after he was put on precautionary suspension. He is now chief operations officer at Emfuleni.

Mnguni filed a civil claim against Mogofe in September 2024 after he had lodged an application in the High Court to freeze his pension and cited the National Fund for Municipal Workers as a second respondent.

On dismissing Mnguni’s application, Judge Moira Mankge pointed out that when Mnguni lodged the application 04 June 2024 there were no criminal charges laid or a civil claim instituted against Mogofe.

Mnguni relied on a forensic audit report, which, according to Mogofe, was a cut and paste of a report that Mnguni presented in a closed council meeting in April 2024 when canvassing councillors for his precautionary suspension.

Mogofe told The People’s Eye Podcast in September that Mnguni came with a report in a black plastic bag to present to council. 

WATCH: The risks of being a Chief Finance Officer in a municipality - threats, intimidation and death

“We were in council meeting. [Mnguni] came with a black plastic bag and the speaker said he had a report and called for an in-committee meeting. Council then took a decision that I must be placed on precautionary suspension,” he said.

“What surprised me is that there were accounting officers before him, but they were not part of his report. I then realised that there was a personal vendetta. The municipal manager must sign off payments above R200 000. The forensic report was the same as his report, especially the recommendation that I must be put on precautionary suspension.”

NO EVIDENCE SHOWN

Judge Mankge indicated in her judgement that Mnguni provided no other evidence other than the forensic report to support his allegations. Mogofe, on the other hand, provided his evidence as attachments to defend himself.

“When the applicant (Mnguni) replied to the first respondent's (Mogofe’s) opposing affidavit, they once again failed to support their claims with evidence. I am certain that they have only themselves to blame in this regard,” Mankge said.

The judge added that there was no evidence in the entire application that criminal charges were pursued following the council resolution of 3 April 2024. 

“The applicant must have shown on a prima facie basis, in this application, that it has a reasonable prospect of success in obtaining an order in its favour, entitling it to the right of the first respondent's pension benefits,” Mankge said.

“The action proceedings also should have established this prospect of success. The applicant should have established on prima facie basis that there is a strong initial impression of guilt on the part of the first respondent,” she said.

MOGOFE TARGETED

Mankge also backed Mogofe’s claim that he was not the only one involved in the payment for which he was charged. 

“In the [forensic] report, it is clear that some other officials other than the first respondent were responsible for the appointment of Masenyeletje, the approval of the SLA (service level agreement), and the deviation. It is also clear in the report that the payments of Masenyeletje's invoices were approved by two other officials, together with the first respondent (meaning this in all probability, was not the first respondent's sole decision),” she said.

Mankge said that in terms of the forensic report, there were no allegations of fraud and theft that were sustainable against Mogofe.

“This is also in my view supported by the applicant's failure to pursue civil action without undue delay. The proceedings were instituted almost five months after the Council's resolution, even on civil action there was no prompt action on the part of the applicant. The above clearly proves that the applicant's application has not acceptably demonstrated grounds for the applicant (now an ex-employer) to be entitled to the first respondent's pensions.”