REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

Case No: 008/2022EC
In the matter between:

SUID-KAAP SAAMSTAAN

APPLICANT

and

ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA –
CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER

FIRST RESPONDENT
THE PROVINCIAL ELECTORAL OFFICER –
WESTERN CAPE

SECOND RESPONDENT
THE MINISTER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT –
WESTERN CAPE

THIRD RESPONDENT
THE ACTING MUNICIPAL MANAGER –
OUDTSHOORN

FOURTH RESPONDENT
MLANDELI ABEDNICO NNYUKA

FIFTH RESPONDENT

Neutral Citation: Suid-Kaap Saamstaan v Electoral Commission of South Africa & Others
(Case no 008/22EC) [2022] ZAEC 09 (28 June 2022)

Coram: Mbha JA, Modiba J and Shongwe AJ and Professor Ntlama-Makhanya and Professor
Phooko (Members)

_________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
_________________________________________________________________________

Shongwe AJ (MBHA JA, MODIBA J and PROFESSOR NTLAMA-MAKHANYA and
PROFESSOR PHOOKO (Members) concurring):

[1] This review application emanates from an internal dispute between purported
members of the applicant in respect of the legitimacy of the fifth respondent's
purported expulsion from the applicant as well as whether certain members of the
applicant hold the requisite authority to issue instructions or to correspond with the first
respondent (the Commission) in respect of and in relation to amendments to the
applicant’s party candidate list and founding particulars.

[2] The applicant approached this court seeking the following relief:
(a)
For an order removing the name of the fifth respondent as the contact person
of the applicant in terms of Regulation 9 of the Regulations for the Registration of
Political Parties 2004 from its records.
(b)
For an order that the Commission record the name of Stephzel Willemse as the
contact person of the applicant in terms of Regulation 9 of the Regulation for the
Registration of Political Parties 2004.
(c)
For an order that the Commission accept and record on its records the
amended Proportional Representation (PR) list of candidates of the applicant as
requested in the notice of the applicant dated 27th April 2022. The application is
opposed by the Commission and the fifth respondent. Later, the Commission filed a
notice to abide and an explanatory affidavit. The fifth respondent filed an answering
affidavit confirming his position as the registered leader of the party. The Commission
filed a notice to abide and an explanatory affidavit. The applicant filed a replying
affidavit.

[3] The facts in this matter are largely common cause, though the fifth respondent
disputes some of the allegations by the applicant. In my considered view, the crux of
the matter is whether or not, in light of the provisions of Regulation 9 of the Regulations
for the Registration of Political Parties 2004, the Commission may accept notification
of the change in the applicant's particulars, when such notification is given by persons
other than the registered party leader. I am of the view that this immediately calls for
an inquiry into what is the current legislation regulating notification of changes in the

founding particulars of the party and amendments to the applicant's party candidate
list.

[4] On 27th August 2021 Regulation 9 for the Registration of Political Parties 2004
was amended by Gazette Notice 45060 Proclamation R35 of 27th August 2021. The
current Regulation 9 reads as follows:
'9 notification of change in registration particulars - Any change in the particulars furnished in
Annexure 1 must be notified to the Chief Electoral Officer in writing within 30 days after such
change by the registered leader of the party.' (See Annexure'EA2' of the explanatory
affidavit). (My emphasis.)

[5] This application was brought on 14th May 2022, six months after the local
government elections in November 2021 and nine months after the amendment of
Regulation 9 for the Registration of Political Parties 2004. Clearly the applicant was
ignorant of the legislative position at the launch of the application. The Commission’s
records indicate the fifth respondent as the registered party leader and not the name
of Stephzel Willemse. Up to date the Commission has not received a written
notification of any change or an amendment to the Deed of Foundation from the
registered leader of the party as prescribed by Regulation 9 for the Registration of
Political Parties 2004. Instead, the Commission has undeniably received a written
notification from the fifth respondent confirming that he is the registered leader of the
party.

[6] The applicant alleges that the fifth respondent has been expelled from the party
which allegation is disputed by the fifth respondent, therefore this dispute on the
composition of the leadership of the applicant constitutes an internal party dispute.
The Commission has as early as 26th April 2022 advised the applicant that it does not
deal with political party's internal disputes. It also advised the applicant to approach
this court to resolve the internal dispute in terms of s 20(2)(a) of the Electoral
Commission Act 51 of 1996 (the Commission Act). The contents of Annexure 'EA7'
clearly explains the provisions of Item 18 and 20 of Schedule 1 of The Local
Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 (the Structures Act) pertaining to
the filing of PR vacancies and the amending of party lists. The applicant failed to heed
this advice. In its replying affidavit the applicant concedes at paragraph 20.1 that it

was not aware of the amendment of Regulation 9 for the Registration of Political
Parties 2004. Instead of withdrawing its application at that moment it persisted with it.

[7] From the short discussion above there is clearly no substance in this
application. It deserves to be dismissed. I wish to thank the Commission for providing
this court with a clear and concise explanatory affidavit setting out the legal procedural
frame-work regarding what needs to be done when there is a change of leadership or
vacancy in a political party’s composition. I also wish to implore political party leaders
to encourage their membership to acquaint themselves with the current applicable
rules, regulations and legislation. This will, to a great extent, save them financially.

[8] For the above reasons this court makes the following order:
The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.

_________________________________

J B Z SHONGWE
ACTING JUDGE
ELECTORAL COURT

28 June 2022