Mokoena and Others v Magashule and Others (2555/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 224 (14 December 2017)

Mokoena and Others v Magashule and Others (2555/2016) [2017] ZAFSHC 224 (14 December 2017)

The minority judgment held that the order granted by the majority, specifically paragraph 4, was unjustified and amounted to judicial overreach. The relief sought by the applicants was essentially a paraphrase of abandoned prayers and was not supported by sufficient factual or legal foundation. The minority found that the court should not prospectively prohibit delegates from attending future conferences or declare future conferences invalid, as this would extend judicial authority beyond its proper limits. The minority relied on Ramakatsa, emphasizing that the court should confine itself to declarations of invalidity regarding specific unlawful events and refrain from regulating internal...

Citation
[2017] ZAFSHC 224
Parties
Applicant: Tumelo John Mokoena; Applicant: Sizwe Hlubi; Applicant: Tsekjso Victor Tsibela; Applicant: Tlaleng Moloi; Applicant: Motloung Lekhetho; Applicant: Maria Mbonambi; Applicant: Pulane Moleleki; Applicant: Nteboheleng Moorosi; Applicant: Solomon Dlamini; Applicant: Momathi Ngozo; Applicant: Lebeko Jacob Monare; Applicant: Lebeko Maile; Applicant: Kingsley Lempe; Applicant: Tebogobozo; Applicant: Matobo Keele; Applicant: Pinky Cuze; Applicant: Tshokolo Manjies; Applicant: Motshwane Kobus Kolobe; Applicant: David Shasha; Applicant: Bosaletse Phepheng; Applicant: Sophia Hadinkame Ramakae; Applicant: Ramasimong Daniel Tau; Applicant: Lankiri Daniel Bolofo; Applicant: Ditseke Abram Moeketsi; Applicant: Busisiwe Mbokotwane; Applicant: Silas Sejake Tau; Respondent: Elias Magashule; Respondent: Thabo Manyoni; Respondent: William Bulwana; Respondent: Mamiki Qabathe; Respondent: Mosebenzi Zwane; Respondent: Maggysotyu; Respondent: Nozililo Mashiya; Respondent: Malewatle Nthedi; Respondent: Disebo Nakedi; Respondent: Joey Mochela; Respondent: Manana Tlake; Respondent: Manana Sechoaro; Respondent: Olly Mlamleli; Respondent: Sarah Moleleki; Respondent: Mathabo Leeto; Respondent: Conny Rampai; Respondent: Lucy Mapena; Respondent: Maureen Scheepers; Respondent: Montsheng Tsiu; Respondent: Phindiwe Maseko; Respondent: Tate Makgoe; Respondent: Thandiwe Reachable; Respondent: Butana Komphela; Respondent: Madala Ntombela; Respondent: Sebenzile Ngangelizwe; Respondent: Jonas Ramokhoase; Respondent: Jack Matutle; Respondent: Charles Stofile; Respondent: Neels van Rooyen; Respondent: Oupa Khoabane; Respondent: Sizwe Mbalo; Respondent: Tefetso Phitsane; Respondent: Thabo Meeko; Respondent: Jihad Mohapi; Respondent: African National Congress; Respondent: Selake Tladi; Respondent: Modise Elias Tshopo; Respondent: Branches of the African National Congress
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Case Number
2555/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Minority Judgment on Final Order
Outcome
Minority judgment dissenting from the majority order, specifically paragraph 4, and refusing to grant the relief prohibiting delegates from attending future conferences or declaring future conferences invalid.
Judges
Van Zyl, Mathebula, Mhlambi
Legal Topics
Internal Party Democracy, Declaratory Relief, Interdict, Judicial Review of Party Processes
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Internal Party Democracy Declaratory Relief Interdict Judicial Review of Party Processes

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tumelo John Mokoena

Applicant

Sizwe Hlubi

Applicant

Tsekjso Victor Tsibela

Applicant

Tlaleng Moloi

Applicant

Motloung Lekhetho

Applicant

Maria Mbonambi

Applicant

Pulane Moleleki

Applicant

Nteboheleng Moorosi

Applicant

Solomon Dlamini

Applicant

Momathi Ngozo

Applicant

Lebeko Jacob Monare

Applicant

Lebeko Maile

Applicant

Kingsley Lempe

Applicant

Tebogobozo

Applicant

Matobo Keele

Applicant

Pinky Cuze

Applicant

Tshokolo Manjies

Applicant

Motshwane Kobus Kolobe

Applicant

David Shasha

Applicant

Bosaletse Phepheng

Applicant

Sophia Hadinkame Ramakae

Applicant

Ramasimong Daniel Tau

Applicant

Lankiri Daniel Bolofo

Applicant

Ditseke Abram Moeketsi

Applicant

Busisiwe Mbokotwane

Applicant

Silas Sejake Tau

Applicant

Elias Magashule

Respondent

Thabo Manyoni

Respondent

William Bulwana

Respondent

Mamiki Qabathe

Respondent

Mosebenzi Zwane

Respondent

Maggysotyu

Respondent

Nozililo Mashiya

Respondent

Malewatle Nthedi

Respondent

Disebo Nakedi

Respondent

Joey Mochela

Respondent

Manana Tlake

Respondent

Manana Sechoaro

Respondent

Olly Mlamleli

Respondent

Sarah Moleleki

Respondent

Mathabo Leeto

Respondent

Conny Rampai

Respondent

Lucy Mapena

Respondent

Maureen Scheepers

Respondent

Montsheng Tsiu

Respondent

Phindiwe Maseko

Respondent

Tate Makgoe

Respondent

Thandiwe Reachable

Respondent

Butana Komphela

Respondent

Madala Ntombela

Respondent

Sebenzile Ngangelizwe

Respondent

Jonas Ramokhoase

Respondent

Jack Matutle

Respondent

Charles Stofile

Respondent

Neels van Rooyen

Respondent

Oupa Khoabane

Respondent

Sizwe Mbalo

Respondent

Tefetso Phitsane

Respondent

Thabo Meeko

Respondent

Jihad Mohapi

Respondent

African National Congress

Respondent

Selake Tladi

Respondent

Modise Elias Tshopo

Respondent

Branches of the African National Congress

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Minority Judgment on Final Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant an order prohibiting nominated delegates from attending future ANC conferences.
  2. 2 Whether the provincial conference scheduled for 1 to 3 December 2017 is unlawful and invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the court should overstep its authority by regulating internal party processes prospectively.

Ratio Decidendi

The minority judgment held that the order granted by the majority, specifically paragraph 4, was unjustified and amounted to judicial overreach. The relief sought by the applicants was essentially a paraphrase of abandoned prayers and was not supported by sufficient factual or legal foundation. The minority found that the court should not prospectively prohibit delegates from attending future conferences or declare future conferences invalid, as this would extend judicial authority beyond its proper limits. The minority relied on Ramakatsa, emphasizing that the court should confine itself to declarations of invalidity regarding specific unlawful events and refrain from regulating internal...

Court Disposition

Minority judgment dissenting from the majority order, specifically paragraph 4, and refusing to grant the relief prohibiting delegates from attending future conferences or declaring future conferences invalid.

Orders

  • The minority would not have granted paragraph 4 of the majority order prohibiting nominated delegates from attending future conferences.
  • The minority would not have declared the provincial conference scheduled for 1 to 3 December 2017 unlawful or invalid prospectively.