12 June 2024

Constitutional Court of South Africa

Case CCT 178/24

In the matter between:
UMKHONTO WESIZWE PARTY (Applicant)

and

CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (First Respondent)

SECRETARY TO PARLIAMENT (Second Respondent)

ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA (Third Respondent)

PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA (Fourth Respondent)

POLITICAL PARTIES WITH DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (Fifth to Twenty-First Respondent)

ORDER

CORAM: Maya DCJ, Gamble AJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Mathopo J, Mhlantla J, Rogers J, Theron J and Tshiqi J.

The Constitutional Court has considered the urgent application brought by way of exclusive jurisdiction and, alternatively, direct access.

It has concluded that the impugned decisions or conduct do not engage this Court's exclusive jurisdiction in terms of section 167(4)(e).

Additionally, it is not in the interests of justice to grant direct access as the impugned decisions or conduct first arose between 1 and 2 June 2024, to the knowledge of the applicant. However, despite this knowledge, the applicant only launched the application on 10 June 2024. The applicant has failed to show any justification for not bringing this application sooner when it was aware of the constitutional requirement to convene the National Assembly no later than 14 days after the declaration of the election results. In the circumstances, the urgency is thus self-created.

Furthermore, the application must fail on the merits. The applicant has not made out a case for the granting of an interim interdict as it has neither shown that it will suffer irreparable harm if the interdict is not granted, nor that the balance of convenience favours the granting of the interdict. The applicant has also misconstrued the relevant constitutional provisions it seeks to rely on. In addition, the applicant has not adduced facts to establish a prima facie case in respect of the relief it will seek in the main application, in order to sustain an interim interdict pending the main application.

Moreover, the applicant's acknowledgement of its own irregular service while persisting with its application cannot be sustained, as the relief being sought carries adverse consequences to the other parties who had not been properly served. Even if the applicant met all the requirements for direct access, absent proper service, the applicant cannot be entitled to the relief sought.

Consequently, the application must be dismissed. The Court has decided not to award costs.

Order: The application is refused.

SIBUSISO MAPOSSA
REGISTRAR
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT