Ntozini and Others v African National Congress and Others (18798/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 415 (25 June 2018)

Ntozini and Others v African National Congress and Others (18798/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 415 (25 June 2018)

The court held that the applicants failed to establish objective grounds for urgency. Their allegations regarding harm to governance and rights as ANC members were bald and unsubstantiated, lacking supporting evidence and confirmatory affidavits from affected councillors. The applicants did not demonstrate which specific rights in the ANC Constitution were infringed. The delay between learning of the NEC's inaction and launching the application, as well as the further delay in setting the matter down for hearing, was unexplained and negated any claim of urgency. The reliance on the Ndebele Report's statement of urgency was insufficient, as urgency must be determined by the court, not the...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 415
Parties
Applicant: Nomakaya Ntozini; Applicant: Ntombekhaya Gunguluza; Applicant: Nkululeko Mali; Applicant: Mbulelo Geswindt; Respondent: African National Congress; Respondent: National Executive Committee; Respondent: Cyril Ramaphosa N.O; Respondent: David Dabede Mabuza N.O; Respondent: Gwede Mantashe N.O; Respondent: Elias Sekgobelo Magashule N.O
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2018
Case Number
18798/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency
Outcome
Application struck from the roll with costs due to lack of urgency.
Judges
Carelse
Legal Topics
Rule 6 12 Urgency, Internal Party Governance, Disciplinary Proceedings, Right to Substantial Redress
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Rule 6 12 Urgency Internal Party Governance Disciplinary Proceedings Right to Substantial Redress

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomakaya Ntozini

Applicant

Ntombekhaya Gunguluza

Applicant

Nkululeko Mali

Applicant

Mbulelo Geswindt

Applicant

African National Congress

Respondent

National Executive Committee

Respondent

Cyril Ramaphosa N.O

Respondent

David Dabede Mabuza N.O

Respondent

Gwede Mantashe N.O

Respondent

Elias Sekgobelo Magashule N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Matter From the Roll for Lack of Urgency

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established objective grounds for urgency justifying deviation from normal court procedures.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have demonstrated that they cannot obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due course.
  3. 3 Whether the disciplinary proceedings and alleged infringements of rights justify urgent relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants failed to establish objective grounds for urgency. Their allegations regarding harm to governance and rights as ANC members were bald and unsubstantiated, lacking supporting evidence and confirmatory affidavits from affected councillors. The applicants did not demonstrate which specific rights in the ANC Constitution were infringed. The delay between learning of the NEC's inaction and launching the application, as well as the further delay in setting the matter down for hearing, was unexplained and negated any claim of urgency. The reliance on the Ndebele Report's statement of urgency was insufficient, as urgency must be determined by the court, not the...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll with costs due to lack of urgency.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll with costs.