Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

South African National Civil Organisation v Ramosie and Others (7016/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 323 (6 May 2022)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the application was riddled with material factual disputes that could not be resolved on the papers. Given the longstanding nature of the dispute and the inability to resolve the facts without oral evidence, the court determined that the only practical and just way to resolve the matter was to refer it to trial. The parties would then have the opportunity to present evidence, be cross-examined, and allow the court to make proper findings on the disputed facts. The court ordered the Applicant to file a declaration and that the rules of action proceedings would apply, with costs to be costs in the action.

Court disposition

Application referred to trial; costs reserved for determination in the action.

Orders

  • The matter is referred to trial.
  • The Applicant must file a declaration setting out its cause of action and the facts relied upon as well as the relief claimed.
  • The rules of Court relating to action proceedings will apply to the action until its conclusion.
  • The declaration must be filed and served within 15 days from the date of this order.
  • The costs of this application will be costs in the action to follow.

02

Material facts

Parties

South African National Civic Organisation

Applicant Counsel: Adv V P Ngutshana

Bakoena Ramosie

Respondent

Isaac Plaatjies

Respondent

Bheki Kahnyile

Respondent

Roy Moodley

Respondent

Packet Seaketso

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Application / Referral to Trial

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The Applicant contends that the National Conference held on 19 January 2019 was convened in accordance with its constitution and that the election process conducted by EISA was credible and legitimate. The Applicant seeks confirmation of the validity of the resolutions and the elected National Executive Committee, and requests that the Respondents' National Interim Leadership Committee be declared unconstitutional and interdicted from acting as such.
Respondent
The Respondents dispute the validity of the National Conference and the election process, contending that the process was not in line with the Applicant's constitution. They maintain that the National Interim Leadership Committee was properly constituted and challenge the Applicant's entitlement to the relief sought. The Respondents raise numerous factual disputes regarding the events and processes in question.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T)

    Where material factual disputes exist in application proceedings, and such disputes cannot be resolved on the papers, the matter should be referred to trial for oral evidence and proper adjudication.

  2. 02

    Uniform Rules of Court

    The rules of court relating to action proceedings apply once a matter is referred to trial from application proceedings.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the application was riddled with material factual disputes that could not be resolved on the papers. Given the longstanding nature of the dispute and the inability to resolve the facts without oral evidence, the court determined that the only practical and just way to resolve the matter was to refer it to trial. The parties would then have the opportunity to present evidence, be cross-examined, and allow the court to make proper findings on the disputed facts. The court ordered the Applicant to file a declaration and that the rules of action proceedings would apply, with costs to be costs in the action.

Obiter and limits

  • It is undesirable to attempt to resolve complex factual disputes in application proceedings where the facts are contested and cannot be resolved without oral evidence.
  • Referral to trial is the appropriate mechanism to ensure a fair and just determination of disputes involving credibility and factual complexity.

Court disposition

Application referred to trial; costs reserved for determination in the action.

  • The matter is referred to trial.
  • The Applicant must file a declaration setting out its cause of action and the facts relied upon as well as the relief claimed.
  • The rules of Court relating to action proceedings will apply to the action until its conclusion.
  • The declaration must be filed and served within 15 days from the date of this order.
  • The costs of this application will be costs in the action to follow.

Source and reliance status

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Judgment

[2022] ZAGPJHC 323

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)

CASE NO. 7016/2019

REPORTABLE:

NO

OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO

REVISED: NO

06 May 2022

In the matter between:

SOUTH

AFRICAN NATIONAL CIVIC ORGANISATION APPLICANT

and

BAKOENA

RAMOSIE

1ST RESPONDENT

ISAAC

PLAATJIES

2ND RESPONDENT

BHEKI

KAHNYILE

3rd RESPONDENT

ROY

MOODLEY

4TH RESPONDENT

PACKET

SEAKETSO

5TH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

L I VORSTER, AJ:

1. This is an application where the Applicant claims from the Respondents the following relief:

“1. A declaratory order is granted that the National Conference held on the 19th of January 2019 by the Applicant was in line with the Constitution and SANCO and:

1.1. Confirming the election process conducted by Electoral Institute for Sustainable Democracy in Africa (EISA) on 19 January 2019, to have been credible and legitimate in accordance with the requirement of the Constitution of SANCO.

1.2. That all resolutions taken in the 6th National Conference held on the 19th January 2019 to be legal and valid.

1.3. That the elected National Executive Committee on 19 January 2019 be declared the only constitutional and recognised structure of SANCO.

1.4. That the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents forming the National Interim Leadership Committee be declared an unconstitutional structure of SANCO and, that it be further interdicted from continuing acting as a constitutionally formed structure of SANCO.

1.5. That the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents be further interdicted from acting as the National Interim Leadership Committee of SANCO and carrying on business, organisational activities and addressing the media and other forums under the letterhead and umbrella of SANCO.”

2. The Respondents are all members of the Applicant. The founding affidavit of the application is made by Michael Soko who claims to be the General Secretary of the Applicant claiming the relief set out above.

3. It appears from the documents filed of record that this application is the culmination of a long-standing dispute between the Respondents and other members of the Applicant. The gist of the dispute between the parties is the question whether a valid National Conference was held on the 19th of January 2019 or whether a National Interim Leadership Committee was elected on that date having the First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents as members. Needless to say, the papers are riddled with factual disputes between the parties. It appears that this is a long-standing dispute between the parties which emanates from as long ago as 2018. I have come to the conclusion that it is undesirable, if at all possible, to sort out the factual disputes between the parties or even referring some factual disputes for oral evidence as a means to come to a decision on the issues in this application. Consequently, I am of the view that the only practical way to resolve this long-standing dispute between the parties is that it should be referred to trial so that the contesting parties can give evidence, get cross-examined and a Court can make a proper decision and findings on the disputed facts to dispose of this application.

4. In the result, I make the following order:

“1. The matter is referred to trial.

2. The Applicant must file a declaration setting out its cause of action

and the facts relied upon as well as the relief claimed.

3. The rules of Court relating to action proceedings will apply to the

action until its conclusion.

4. The declaration referred to above must be filed and served within 15 days from date of this order.

5. The costs of this application will be costs in the action to follow.”

L I VORSTER SC, AJ

Acting Judge of the High Court

HEARD ON: 20

APRIL 2022

DECIDED ON: 06

MAY 2022

For the Applicants:

ADV V P Ngutshana

Instructed by Masondo Malope Attorneys Incorporated

For the Respondents:

KWINANA

MABUSA NKOME INC

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T)

Case cited

Uniform Rules of Court

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.