The Gauteng provincial government has approached the Constitutional Court on an urgent basis over a damning judgment from the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which found the decision to dissolve the Tshwane council unlawful.

MEC for human settlements, urban planning and cooperative governance Lebogang Maile said in a media briefing on Thursday the high court judgment, which was handed over by a full bench, raised important constitutional and legal issues and it could not remain unchallenged.

In March, Gauteng Premier David Makhura announced that the executive council in the province was invoking Section 139(1)(c) of the Constitution. It meant an administrator would be appointed to run the City of Tshwane and fresh elections would be held within three months.

Reasons for the dissolution included a breach in the council's executive obligations, such as failing to spend grant money, unlawfully awarding tenders, the suspension of critical appointments, the Hammanskraal water crisis and unauthorised and irregular expenditure.

The DA then decided to challenge this decision in the Gauteng High Court, arguing that Makhura and his exco had dissolved the council for political reasons. 

Last month, the court ruled in the DA's favour and found the decision to dissolve the council unlawful. 

"Interference from one sphere of government into another sphere, as we have here, is seen as most intrusive and can only be resorted to in exceptional circumstances," the court found.

"The decision of the Gauteng executive council to dissolve the City of Tshwane metropolitan municipality, taken on March 4 and communicated to applicants on March 10, is reviewed, declared invalid and set aside," the court ruled.

During the briefing, Maile said the court's finding had created some confusion.

"The high court judgment has created more confusion as opposed to providing greater clarity on the dynamic interplay between provincial and local government.

"The high court was quick to find that a municipality's constitutional and statutory obligations are not always 'executive obligations' under Section 139, but the high court never really explained the difference," said Maile.

He argued that the approach adopted by the courts was "unworkable" and "inconsistent" with previous judgments by the Constitutional Court on municipalities' obligations.

The province also took issue with proportionality, saying the courts tested the dissolution against a proportionality standard, whilst the decision to dissolve the municipality was not administrative.

The City is due to elect a new mayor over the weekend, in line with the high court decision.