Julies and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (9452/05) [2005] ZAWCHC 72; 2006 (4) SA 13 (C); [2006] 4 All SA 457 (C) (3 October 2005)

Julies and Others v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (9452/05) [2005] ZAWCHC 72; 2006 (4) SA 13 (C); [2006] 4 All SA 457 (C) (3 October 2005)

The court held that the 10% threshold for floor crossing under item 2(1) of Schedule 6A to the Constitution must be determined according to the party's representation immediately prior to the commencement of the window period, not at the time individual members leave the party. The legislative intent was to freeze the composition of the National Assembly during the 15-day window period, allowing members to change party allegiance without losing their seats, provided the cumulative number of defectors meets the threshold. The applicants' interpretation would result in an ever-changing threshold, leading to unreasonable and absurd consequences, contrary to the purpose of the legislation....

Citation
[2005] ZAWCHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Frederick Isaac Julies; Applicant: Godfried August Josephes Grobler; Applicant: Hendrika Hunter; Applicant: Mark Harvey Steele; Applicant: Penelope Anne Tainton; Applicant: Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Speaker of the National Assembly; Respondent: Progressive Independent Movement; Respondent: African National Congress; Respondent: Independent Electoral Commission; Respondent: Craig Mervyn Morkel; Respondent: Daniel Kapeni Maluleke; Respondent: Richard Sibusiso Ntuli; Respondent: Bhekinhlanhla Mnyandu; Respondent: Enyinna Nkem-Abonta
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2005
Case Number
9452/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, payable jointly and severally by the applicants to first, third, and sixth to ninth respondents.
Judges
P B Fourie
Legal Topics
Floor Crossing, Interpretation of Constitution, Threshold Requirement, Party Membership, Review of Parliamentary Decisions
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Floor Crossing Interpretation of Constitution Threshold Requirement Party Membership Review of Parliamentary Decisions

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Isaac Julies

Applicant

Godfried August Josephes Grobler

Applicant

Hendrika Hunter

Applicant

Mark Harvey Steele

Applicant

Penelope Anne Tainton

Applicant

Democratic Alliance

Applicant

Speaker of the National Assembly

Respondent

Progressive Independent Movement

Respondent

African National Congress

Respondent

Independent Electoral Commission

Respondent

Craig Mervyn Morkel

Respondent

Daniel Kapeni Maluleke

Respondent

Richard Sibusiso Ntuli

Respondent

Bhekinhlanhla Mnyandu

Respondent

Enyinna Nkem-Abonta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of the 10% threshold in item 2(1) of Schedule 6A to the Constitution for floor crossing in the National Assembly.
  2. 2 At what point in time must the 10% threshold be calculated for members seeking to cross the floor.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to fill the seats vacated by respondents who changed party membership during the window period.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the 10% threshold for floor crossing under item 2(1) of Schedule 6A to the Constitution must be determined according to the party's representation immediately prior to the commencement of the window period, not at the time individual members leave the party. The legislative intent was to freeze the composition of the National Assembly during the 15-day window period, allowing members to change party allegiance without losing their seats, provided the cumulative number of defectors meets the threshold. The applicants' interpretation would result in an ever-changing threshold, leading to unreasonable and absurd consequences, contrary to the purpose of the legislation....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, payable jointly and severally by the applicants to first, third, and sixth to ninth respondents.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the costs of suit of first, third and sixth to ninth respondents, such costs to include the costs of two counsel.