Kupa v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (39/2018) [2018] ZAECGHC 126 (7 December 2018)

Kupa v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (39/2018) [2018] ZAECGHC 126 (7 December 2018)

The court found that the First Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the late filing of its Answering Affidavit, and its condonation application was refused. On the merits, the court held that the Applicant was entitled to all procedural rights under the party’s Code of Conduct, including the right to a final review or appeal before the National People’s Assembly. The First Respondent acted prematurely by implementing the expulsion and replacing the Applicant as councillor before the appeal process was completed. The court emphasized that internal disciplinary codes must be followed and that the rules of natural justice apply. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 126
Parties
Applicant: Amanda Kupa; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: Independent Electoral Commission; Respondent: Intsika Yethu Municipality; Respondent: Zoleka Qotoyi
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2018
Case Number
39/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted as prayed; condonation refused; First Respondent to pay costs.
Judges
Mnyatheli
Legal Topics
Internal Party Discipline, Procedural Fairness, Condonation, Natural Justice, Expulsion of Member
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Internal Party Discipline Procedural Fairness Condonation Natural Justice Expulsion of Member

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amanda Kupa

Applicant

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Independent Electoral Commission

Respondent

Intsika Yethu Municipality

Respondent

Zoleka Qotoyi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent provided a legally satisfactory application for condonation of its late filing of an Answering Affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation of Clauses D.24 and D.25 of the First Respondent's Code of Conduct and Revolutionary Discipline is correct, specifically regarding the implementation of expulsion pending appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Respondent failed to provide a satisfactory and reasonable explanation for the late filing of its Answering Affidavit, and its condonation application was refused. On the merits, the court held that the Applicant was entitled to all procedural rights under the party’s Code of Conduct, including the right to a final review or appeal before the National People’s Assembly. The First Respondent acted prematurely by implementing the expulsion and replacing the Applicant as councillor before the appeal process was completed. The court emphasized that internal disciplinary codes must be followed and that the rules of natural justice apply. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application granted as prayed; condonation refused; First Respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • Condonation for late filing of Answering Affidavit is refused.
  • Application is considered as if unopposed.