Inkatha Freedom Party and Others v African National Congress and Others (6512/2011) [2012] ZAKZPHC 28 (9 May 2012)

Inkatha Freedom Party and Others v African National Congress and Others (6512/2011) [2012] ZAKZPHC 28 (9 May 2012)

The court found that the Fourth Respondent failed to demonstrate that the applicants' case was obviously unsustainable or vexatious. The applicants' challenge to the composition of the Executive Committee was based on statutory requirements under the Municipal Structures Act, and the merits of the main application were not to be assessed at this stage. The respondent's claim of financial incapacity was based solely on hearsay evidence, which was not properly admitted and disputed by the applicants. The applicants, as councillors, were not immune from costs orders and had not shown inability to pay. The argument that Rule 53 should have been followed was rejected, as the relief sought was...

Citation
[2012] ZAKZPHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Inkatha Freedom Party; Applicant: Mbangiseni Shadrach Yengwa; Applicant: Dudu Nonhlanhla Zondi; Applicant: Ignatius Nyoka; Applicant: Viloshene Pillay; Applicant: Silam Vincent Zondi; Applicant: Rajendraparsad Maharaj; Applicant: Mthuliseni Leanerd Shezi; Applicant: Emmanuel Nkosikayise Mncube; Applicant: Mbongiseni Richard Dlamini; Respondent: African National Congress; Respondent: National Freedom Party; Respondent: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Umvoti Municipality; Respondent: Ahmed Mohamed Shaik; Respondent: Philani Godfrey Mavundla; Respondent: Sikhumbuzo Enock Mngima; Respondent: Pamela Thandazile Zuma; Respondent: Bongani Eugene Mlondo; Respondent: Zandile Christina Ngema; Respondent: Bethuel Gcina Dladla; Respondent: Sibongiseni Anthony Nzama; Respondent: Khulekani Lindokuhle Chonco; Respondent: Nqobila Siphiwayinkosi Victory Maphanga; Respondent: Zamokwakhwe Wilson Xaba; Respondent: Enoch Sibongiseni Shange; Respondent: Paul Richards Buss
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2012
Case Number
6512/2011
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsels.
Judges
K Pillay
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Municipal Structures Act, Proportional Representation, Review Proceedings, Hearsay Evidence, Privileges and Immunities
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Land and Property Security for Costs Municipal Structures Act Proportional Representation Review Proceedings Hearsay Evidence +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Inkatha Freedom Party

Applicant

Mbangiseni Shadrach Yengwa

Applicant

Dudu Nonhlanhla Zondi

Applicant

Ignatius Nyoka

Applicant

Viloshene Pillay

Applicant

Silam Vincent Zondi

Applicant

Rajendraparsad Maharaj

Applicant

Mthuliseni Leanerd Shezi

Applicant

Emmanuel Nkosikayise Mncube

Applicant

Mbongiseni Richard Dlamini

Applicant

African National Congress

Respondent

National Freedom Party

Respondent

Democratic Alliance

Respondent

Umvoti Municipality

Respondent

Ahmed Mohamed Shaik

Respondent

Philani Godfrey Mavundla

Respondent

Sikhumbuzo Enock Mngima

Respondent

Pamela Thandazile Zuma

Respondent

Bongani Eugene Mlondo

Respondent

Zandile Christina Ngema

Respondent

Bethuel Gcina Dladla

Respondent

Sibongiseni Anthony Nzama

Respondent

Khulekani Lindokuhle Chonco

Respondent

Nqobila Siphiwayinkosi Victory Maphanga

Respondent

Zamokwakhwe Wilson Xaba

Respondent

Enoch Sibongiseni Shange

Respondent

Paul Richards Buss

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application by the applicants is vexatious and warrants an order for security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have the financial means to satisfy an adverse costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the procedure under Rule 53 of the Uniform Rules of Court should have been followed for review proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Fourth Respondent failed to demonstrate that the applicants' case was obviously unsustainable or vexatious. The applicants' challenge to the composition of the Executive Committee was based on statutory requirements under the Municipal Structures Act, and the merits of the main application were not to be assessed at this stage. The respondent's claim of financial incapacity was based solely on hearsay evidence, which was not properly admitted and disputed by the applicants. The applicants, as councillors, were not immune from costs orders and had not shown inability to pay. The argument that Rule 53 should have been followed was rejected, as the relief sought was...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsels.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • The Fourth Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs consequent upon the employment of two counsels.