Ramakatsa and Others v African national Congress and Another (3041/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 26 (21 February 2019)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the Provincial Conference held in May 2018 was unlawful or in violation of the previous court order. The respondents provided credible documentary evidence of attempts to reconvene BGMs in all affected wards, and the applicants' allegations were largely unfounded or contradicted by the evidence. The court held that the respondents were not in contempt of court, as they acted in good faith and took reasonable steps to comply with the order. The applicants' approach was opportunistic, seeking to revive issues already adjudicated or not previously raised, which undermined the finality of litigation. The application was dismissed in...
- Citation
- [2019] ZAFSHC 26
- Parties
- Applicant: Matshepo Ramakatsa; Applicant: Lebeko Maile; Applicant: Themba Mvandaba; Applicant: Shashapa Joshua Motaung; Respondent: African National Congress; Respondent: Members of the Provincial Executive Committee of the African National Congress in the Free State
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 February 2019
- Case Number
- 3041/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application
- Outcome
- Application dismissed in toto with costs, including reserved costs and costs for two counsel where employed.
- Judges
- A.F. Jordaan
- Legal Topics
- Internal Party Democracy, Contempt of Court, Branch General Meetings, Section 19 Rights, Costs Order
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Matshepo Ramakatsa
Applicant
Lebeko Maile
Applicant
Themba Mvandaba
Applicant
Shashapa Joshua Motaung
Applicant
African National Congress
Respondent
Members of the Provincial Executive Committee of the African National Congress in the Free State
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Provincial Conference held on 18 and 19 May 2018 was in violation of the court order of 29 November 2017.
- 2 Whether the decisions, resolutions, and outcomes of the Provincial Conference are unlawful and unconstitutional.
- 3 Whether the first respondent is in contempt of court for alleged non-compliance with the previous order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the Provincial Conference held in May 2018 was unlawful or in violation of the previous court order. The respondents provided credible documentary evidence of attempts to reconvene BGMs in all affected wards, and the applicants' allegations were largely unfounded or contradicted by the evidence. The court held that the respondents were not in contempt of court, as they acted in good faith and took reasonable steps to comply with the order. The applicants' approach was opportunistic, seeking to revive issues already adjudicated or not previously raised, which undermined the finality of litigation. The application was dismissed in...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed in toto with costs, including reserved costs and costs for two counsel where employed.
Orders
- The application is dismissed in its entirety.
- Applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel where so employed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment