About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAWCHC 40
|
|
National Peoples Party v Municipal Manager: Witzenberg Municipality and Others (24615/2015) [2016] ZAWCHC 40 (24 March 2016)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN
CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case No:
24615/2015
DATE: 24 MARCH
2016
In
the matter between:
NATIONAL
PEOPLES
PARTY
...............................................................................................
Applicant
And
MUNICIPAL
MANAGER:
WITZENBERG
MUNICIPALITY
.............................................................................
First
Respondent
INDEPENDENT
ELECTORAL
COMMISSION
.................................................
Second
Respondent
MARK
ANTHONY
MENTOR
..................................................................................
Third
Respondent
JUDGMENT
DELIVERED ON 24 MARCH 2016
BOQWANA,
J
Introduction
[1]
The applicant (‘the NPP’)
seeks an order declaring that the third respondent is not a member of
the NPP and accordingly
not a councillor of the Witzenberg
Municipality (‘the Municipality’); alternatively a
directive that the first respondent
inform the second respondent that
a vacancy exists in respect of the seat occupied by the third
respondent as envisaged by Item
18 (1) (b) of Schedule 1 of the Local
Government: Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 (‘the Act’).
[2]
The NPP contends that the third
respondent has never been its member and was never entitled to fill
its seat on the Council of the
Municipality (‘the Council’)
or if he became a member of the NPP, that such membership seized
automatically in terms
of clause 12.8.2 of the NPP constitution
because the third respondent was a member of other political parties.
Accordingly, so
the NNP contends, the NPP seat on the Council of the
Municipality is vacant.
[3]
The NPP also submits that under
normal circumstances this vacancy would have been filled by the
second respondent (‘the IEC’)
based on the NPP’s
party list for the Municipality in terms of Items 18 (1) (a) and 20
of the Act. The NPP further
contends that it has been unable to
fill the vacant seat because the Municipal Manager of the
Municipality, David Nasson (‘The
Municipal Manager’) has
refused to inform the IEC that a vacancy exists as he is obliged to
do in terms of Item 18 (1) (b)
of Schedule 1 of the Act. Because of
the Municipal Managers actions, the IEC takes the view that it cannot
act to fill the vacancy.
[4]
It is for that reason that the NPP
has approached this Court for a declaratory order. The application is
opposed only by the third
respondent. The applicant was represented
by Mr D Borgström whilst the third respondent appeared in person
having indicated
that he was not able to procure legal representation
due to lack of funds.
Facts
[5]
The NPP was led by one Badih Chaaban
(‘Chaaban’) as its president until on or about 4 November
2015 when he resigned.
He also represented the NPP in the Council as
its councillor and resigned from this position on 08 November 2015.
After his resignation
as party president, his daughter Wesaal Lee
Chaaban (‘Ms Chaaban’) who is a deponent to the founding
affidavit took
over.
[6]
During the first week of November
2015,
Chaaban
met with the third respondent and one Andrė Jacobs (‘Jacobs’)
at his house in Hout Bay to discuss the politics
of the Municipality.
At this meeting it was agreed that the third respondent would replace
Chaaban as a Councillor for the NPP.
It is common cause that the
third respondent was not a member of the NPP at that stage. According
to Chaaban, the idea was that
the third respondent would advance the
cause of the NPP and that of the Nationalist Coloured Party (‘NCP’)
of which
Jacobs was a leader. The NPP alleges that the third
respondent had previously approached Chaaban in 2013 to become a
councillor.
[7]
According to the third respondent he
was handed a party membership form by Chaaban at his house in Hout
Bay (presumably at the meeting
where they agreed that he would take
over from Chaaban as a councillor), which he signed immediately. It
is not clear from the
answering affidavit what happened with this
membership form after signing it.
[8]
The third respondent further alleges
that Chaaban sent to him an appendix 4 IEC form
via
email.
[9]
The NPP disputes that the third
respondent ever signed a membership form to join the party. It also
disputes that a membership form
was given to him by Chaaban and that
he was sent an IEC appendix 4 Form as he alleges. The third
respondent alleges that
Chaaban indicated that Jacobs will do the
further paperwork.
[10]
A nomination form dated 6 November
2015, was apparently sent to the IEC for the replacement of Chaaban
by the third respondent.
This appears to have been signed by Jacobs
as the duly authorised representative of the NPP.
[11]
According to Chaaban, Jacobs was
only tasked with ensuring that the third respondent became a member
of the NPP. It is further alleged
by the NPP that Jacobs was not
authorised to sign the nomination form on behalf of the Party. It
asserts that only Chaaban was
a duly authorised signatory at that
time.
[12]
The NPP regards the placing of the
third respondent on the party’s IEC list as a mistake which was
done by Jacobs without
checking whether the third respondent was in
fact a member of the party before doing so. It alleges that when
Chaaban discovered
that the mistake had occurred, he immediately
contacted the third respondent on or about 16 November 2015 and
requested a meeting
with him. The third respondent avoided
meeting with him and brought up excuses such as that his vehicle had
broken down or
that he had no money. He also did not answer Chaaban’s
phone calls.
[13]
The third respondent alleges that on
23 November 2015, he received an SMS from Jacobs that he must deposit
R10 000 in the NPP’s
bank account. He informed Jacobs that
he would not be able to pay that amount of money as he only received
two weeks’ worth
of salary. He was then called by Chaaban who
requested that they meet in Cape Town. They met at the Engen
Garage where Chaaban
insulted him and said he must pay R13 000,
or he would fire him from his position as a councillor of his
political party.
Chabaan further told him that if he wanted to stay
on as a councillor up to January 2016, he must pay him R22 000.
He alleges
that from then on Chaaban used foul language and
threatened him
via
whatsapp
messages. He proceeded to lay charges against Chaaban with the SAPS
as a result of these.
[14]
Chabaan denies that he tried to
extract money from the third respondent. According to him, the third
respondent had indicated that
he was prepared to resign. He alleges
that the third respondent informed him that he did not receive all
his salary due to his
arrears with the Municipality for electricity.
This meant that he did not even want to make the compulsory
contribution to the
NPP. The NPP alleges many political parties
require compulsory contributions from their councillors.
[15]
On 1 December
2015 Chaaban informed the Municipal Manager
via
email that it had come to his knowledge that the third respondent was
not a member of the NPP nor had he applied for membership
yet.
Chaaban requested the Municipal Manager to declare a vacancy as a
result of this discovery. The Municipal Manager refused
to do so
alleging that Chaaban had resigned from politics and as a leader of
the NPP. He further required that the issue be raised
on the
letterhead of the NPP.
[16]
It appears that the third respondent
resigned from the Council during December 2015 as evidenced by a
letter he signed and addressed
to the Municipality. He however
withdrew that resignation by means of a letter dated 9 December 2015.
Both letters are attached
to the replying affidavit as annexures.
[17]
The issue of his resignation and the
withdrawal thereof is further confirmed by statements made by one
Christiaan Klaren and Luigi
De Klerk to the police on 28 January 2016
and attached to the replying affidavit. The third respondent
confirmed from the bar that
he had indeed resigned, but that he
withdrew his resignation because of the insults he received from
Chaaban, which is essentially
in conformity with the police
statements of the aforementioned individuals.
[18]
A letter dated 02 December 2015 was
sent on a letterhead by Ms Chaaban, the current President of the NPP
to the Municipal Manager
requesting him to declare a vacancy due to
the fact that the third respondent was neither a member of, nor a
councillor for the
party. No response was received from him. Ms
Chabaan accordingly instructed attorneys to write to him.
[19]
On 11 December 2015, the NPP’s
attorney called the Municipal Manager to ascertain why he had not
declared the vacancy.
It appears from the attorney’s
letter addressed to the Municipal Manager that the stance adopted by
the Municipal Manager
was that the third respondent could only lose
his right to fill the position of a councillor if he ceases to be a
member of the
NPP. According to him that did not apply if the third
respondent had never been a member of the NPP.
[20]
The NPP’s attorney also wrote
to the IEC but was advised that it could not act until it was
informed by the Municipal Manager
of the vacancy.
Member of other
political parties
[21]
Chaaban claims that the third
respondent and Jacobs had neither supported the NPP nor the
NCP. He in fact remained a leader
of his own party which is called
Democratic Association of Witzenberg Independence (‘DAWI’).
The NPP attached a print-out
from the IEC’S website reflecting
the third respondent as a contact person for this DAWI Party.
[22]
It is not clear whether the website
print out is a reflection of current information. In the
circumstances, it would not be fair
to regard what is reflected on
the website as being a true reflection of the current state of
affairs in regard to the third respondent’s
association with
the DAWI Party.
[23]
The NPP further alleges that the
third respondent remained a member of another party, namely the Voice
of Independents Party
(‘VIP’). The third
respondent alleges that Chaaban knew that he was a member of the VIP
when he approached him. He also
states that he resigned from the VIP.
He however does not mention when he did so.
[24]
The NPP has attached to its replying
affidavit an affidavit from one John Veschini (‘Veschini’)
who claims to be a leader
of that party. Veschini alleges that the
third respondent was a member of the VIP at all relevant times i.e.
during the period
of November 2015 to date. He attached to his
affidavit an annual membership subscription form dated 25 September
2015, allegedly
belonging to the third respondent and documents
showing that the third respondent was on the VIP’s party list
of candidates
as at September and October 2015, to confirm these
allegations. According to Veschini the third respondent has not
resigned from
the VIP as he claims in his answering affidavit. He
alleges further that, according to the VIP’s constitution, the
resignation
must be in writing and be submitted to him as the leader
of the party. He has received no such resignation from the
third
respondent. He further confirms to having had sight of the
chain of emails attached to the founding affidavit which show that
the
third respondent was still a member of the VIP and confirms that
those email exchanges took place between him and the third
respondent.
This according to him, is a further indication that the
third respondent is a member of the VIP. He refers to a particular
email
dated 4 November 2015, where it is alleged that the third
respondent would be declared ‘
Deputy
Leaser (
sic
)
and Chairperson of a newly formed Executive
’
[of the VIP].
Application to
strike out
[25]
The NPP seeks the Court to strike
out certain paragraphs of the third respondent’s answering
affidavit in terms of Rule 30A.
The basis thereof is that their
attorneys delivered a Notice in terms of Rule 35(12) requesting the
third respondent to produce
for inspection the following documents
referred to in his opposing affidavit: the party’s membership
form, appendix 4 IEC
Form and an email from Chaaban mentioned in
paragraph 5.4 of the affidavit; a copy of an SMS from Jacobs that he
must deposit R10 000
to the party’s account mentioned in
5.8 thereof as well as his resignation from the VIP referred to
in paragraph 5.19
of the affidavit.
[26]
None of these documents were made
available for inspection as per the aforementioned notice sent in
terms of Rule 35(12). Clarity
of about these documents was given to
the third respondent but he still did not reply to the notice. The
NPP therefore seeks the
striking out of paragraphs 5.4, 5.8 and 5.19
of the third respondent’s answering affidavit.
The legal
basis for the application
[27]
The NPP contends that the third
respondent has never been a member of NPP and even if he was, he was,
at all relevant times also
a member of another political party which
it submits is not allowed in terms of clause 12.8.2 of the NPP’s
constitution.
By virtue of being a member of another political party,
it is submitted, he ceased to be a member of NPP and accordingly
cannot
represent the NPP as a councillor in the Council. The NPP
relies on several provisions of the Act as well as its constitution
and
that of the VIP to advance its case.
[28]
Firstly, it alleges that in terms of
both the party’s constitution and s 27 (c) of the Act only NPP
members can represent
the party as councillors. It is perhaps worth
starting with s 22 (1) of the Act which provides as follows:
‘
22
Election of metropolitan and local councils
(1)
The council of a metropolitan or local
municipality
consists of councillors
elected
in accordance with Schedule 1 –
(a)
by voters registered on that municipality’s
segment of the national common voters roll,
to
proportionally represent the parties that contested the election
in that municipality;
(b)
by voters registered on that municipality’s
segment of the national common voters roll in the respective wards in
that municipality,
to directly represent the wards.’
[29]
In terms of Item 10 (1) of Schedule
1, ‘
[a] list of candidates may be
submitted only by a party
’.
Section 27(c) then states that:
‘
27
Vacation of office
A councillor vacates
office during a term of office if that councillor -
...
(c)
was elected from a party list referred to
in Schedule 1 or 2
and ceases to be a
member of the relevant party
...’
(Underlined for emphasis)
[30]
It follows from the above provisions
that a councillor becomes a councillor by virtue of being elected
from a party list to represent
the party that contested the
elections. If he or she ceases to be a member of the relevant party,
he or she vacates office.
[31]
Once a councillor ceases to hold
office then Item 18 (1) (b) of the Act provides that:
‘
(1)
(a) If a councillor elected from a party list ceases to hold office,
the chief electoral officer must, subject to item 20, declare
in
writing the person whose name is at the top of the applicable party
list to be elected in the vacancy.
(b)
Whenever a
councillor referred to in paragraph (a) ceases to hold office, the
municipal manager concerned must within seven days
after the
councillor has ceased to hold office, inform the chief electoral
officer accordingly.
(2)
Where a party list has become exhausted, item 17, adjusted as may
contextually be necessary, applies to the supplementation
of the
list, and if the party fails to supplement its list, or if the party
has ceased to exist, the vacancy must remain unfilled.
’
(Underlined for emphasis)
[32]
The question is whether the
Municipal Manager is correct in the reasoning he reportedly adopted
which is that the Act only called
upon him to declare a vacancy only
in the event of a councillor ‘ceasing’ to be a member of
a party (i.e. in an instance
where a person was a member of a party
in the first place) as opposed to a situation where a councillor had
never been a member
of the party concerned.
[33]
In
Kubyana
v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd
2014 (3) SA 56
CC, Mhlantla AJ held as follows at para 18 ‘...
it
is well established that the statutes must be interpreted with due
regard to their purpose and within their context
.’
The words in the statute ‘
should
be read in light of the subject-matter with which they are concerned,
and ...it is only when that is done that one can arrive
at the true
intention of the Legislature
.’
[1]
[34]
Looking at the provisions of the Act
I have referred to above, the occupation of a seat as a councillor is
tied to one being a member
of a party from whose list he or she was
elected. In other words councillorship begins and continues on the
basis of party membership.
In my view, even though the word ‘ceases’
in the Act refers to a situation of a person who was a member of a
party
and ceased to be one, it cannot be said that a person who was
mistakenly placed on a party list or nominated by a party as a
councillor
without being a member of that party or was fraudulently
placed on the list would remain a councillor on the basis that he or
she
did not cease to be a member of that party but rather was never
its member in the first place.
[35]
A purposive approach should be
adopted in my view. The provisions of the Act should viewed in a
wider sense with the purpose of
the statute in mind which links
councillorship to party membership. Even if the provisions of
the Act that I have been referred
to do not specifically mention
vacation of a seat by a councillor in a situation of a person
who was never a member of a
political party, that he or she purports
to represent, it cannot be said that that vacancy was properly
filled.
[36]
It
has been held that courts should ‘
prefer
interpretation of legislation that fall within constitutional bounds
over those that do not, provided that such an interpretation
can
reasonably be ascribed to the section
.’
[2]
[37]
In view of the Act, if a person is
not a member of the party from whose party list he or she was
elected, that person can no longer
be a councillor. An interpretation
contrary to that would not be in conformity with the objects of the
Act and its particular provisions.
Therefore, it could not have been
the intention of the legislature to allow persons who had no ties
with a political party they
purport to represent to remain holding a
seat as a councillor on the basis that they did not cease to be a
member as contemplated
by the Act, but rather had never been members
of that party, which means as the consequence the position they sit
in could not
be declared vacant. That interpretation, in my view,
would lead to absurdity and would not be consistent with objects and
the spirit
of the Act. It accordingly follows that the interpretation
ascribed to the Municipal Manager is too narrow and unreasonable, in
my view.
[38]
It is always open, however, for the
aggrieved party to challenge the issue of the alleged non-membership
if he or she holds a different
view.
Is the third
respondent a member of the NPP?
[39]
It
is trite that ‘
If
the material facts are in dispute and there is no request for the
hearing of oral evidence, a final order will only be granted
on
notice of motion if the facts as stated by the respondent together
with the facts alleged by the applicant that are admitted
by the
respondent, justify such an order
.’
[3]
[40]
The
court must assess the alleged dispute of fact and see whether in
truth there is a real dispute of fact which cannot be satisfactorily
resolved without the aid of oral evidence. If this is not done, the
respondent might be able to raise fictitious disputes of fact
and
thus delay the hearing of the matter to the prejudice of the
applicant. It has been held that the Court must take ‘a
robust,
common sense approach to a dispute on motion, and not hesitate to
decide an issue because it may be difficult to do so’.
[4]
[41]
In this instance, I am of the view
that the robust approach should be followed. None of the parties
requested that a dispute of
fact be referred for oral evidence.
Having considered the issue and being alive to the fact that the
third respondent was not legally
represented, I am of the view that
viva voce
evidence, if called for, would not have disturbed the balance of
probabilities appearing from the affidavits.
[42]
The third respondent alleges that he
was a member of the NPP by virtue of a membership form he was given
by Chaaban at his home
which he immediately signed. He does not state
what he did with this form after signing it. Moreover, and more
importantly, he
did not respond to the Notice in terms of Rule 35(12)
by producing the alleged form and other requested documents, or by
stating
that he was not in possession thereof or, who was. It
is difficult to draw an inference in his favour that the form must
have been given back to Chaaban. The third respondent attempted to
explain what he did with the form from the bar which was unhelpful.
[43]
The NPP’s allegation that the
third respondent was not its member is supported by one of the
whatsapp messages attached to
the supplementary opposing affidavit,
which the third respondent alleges were sent to him by Chaaban. In
that relevant message
Chaaban states the following:
‘
Copy
me the resignation letter you gave to the mm apparently u resigned on
15 January 2016????
We agreed that we
solve the problem by u resigning the next day???
U
not a member mark!!! It is a problem you are a councillor for the npp
but u not a member!!! How does this work?? Did u join npp??
When? I
never saw your membership card, if u have joined send me your
application form to check again
!!!???
I
thought you were gonna join us
? But
u...’ (Underlined for emphasis)
[44]
This message supports the version of
the NPP that the third respondent was not a member of the NPP. This
version is also supported
by an email and letter sent to the
Municipal Manager by Chaaban and Ms Chaaban on 01 and 02 December
2015 respectively stating
that the third respondent was not a member,
which was not too long after he was made a councillor for the NPP.
Furthermore, there
is also no indication that the third respondent
paid any membership or subscription fee as stipulated in clause 11.5
of the NPP
constitution, which would have strengthen his case that he
was indeed a member.
[45]
For those reasons, I have to accept
the NNP’s version that the third respondent was not a member of
the NNP and reject his
as being implausible. There is also no
indication that he ever joined the NPP as a member. The allegation
that the he met with
Chaaban and signed a membership form is not
sufficient proof of membership. The NPP has a constitution that
governs it, which provides
for how membership is acquired. For those
reasons it is not necessary to deal with the application to strike
out.
Was the third
respondent a member of another political Party?
[46]
The NPP contends that even if the
third respondent were found to be a member of the NPP, he was a
member of other political parties,
which is prohibited by clause
12.8.2 of its constitution. The relevant clause reads as follows:
‘
12.8
A member ceases to be a member of the NPP when he/she:
12.8.2
Canvasses other members of the NPP to
resign from the NPP or join another Party
.
12.8.3 A member, who
ceases to be a member of the NPP loses all privileges of Party
membership and
if that member is a public representative, he/she
also loses the office which he/she occupies by virtue of his
/her
membership with immediate effect. ...’ (Underline for emphasis)
[47]
The meaning of clause 12.8.2 that
the NPP is relying on is not as straight forward as it is suggested.
That clause is ambiguously
framed. It is capable of two meanings. On
the one hand it could be read to mean that a member ceases to be a
member if he or she
canvasses other members to resign or [to] join
another party. The emphasis being on ‘
canvassing
other members’
.
It can also be read to mean that a member ceases to be a member if he
or she....joins[s] another party, although [s] is missing
from that
sentence, which can be explained as being clumsily drafted.
[48]
The third respondent does not
dispute the allegation that he could not belong to another political
party whilst being a member of
NPP. He therefore does not challenge
the meaning ascribed to clause 12.8.2 by the NPP. He simply alleges
that Chaaban had known
that he was a VIP member when he approached
him. He also alleges that he resigned from the VIP. He
neither states the
period of his resignation nor does he provide any
evidence in support of this allegation in order to rebut the evidence
provided
by the NPP on this issue. I have no reason not to
accept the NPP’s version that a member of the NPP is not
permitted
to join another political party.
[49]
If one accepts that a person who
belongs to another political party ceases to be a member he or she
also loses all membership privileges
and any office he held as a
public representative in terms of clause 12.8.3.
[50]
The evidence shows that the third
respondent became a councillor of the NPP, when he was already a
member of the VIP. He continued
as a member of the VIP even after he
was a councillor for the NPP. He was still on the VIP party
list when he was serving
as councillor on behalf of the NNP. This is
not only evidenced by Veschini’s affidavit that the third
respondent never
resigned as the VIP member, emails some of which
were written to the third respondent in December 2015, also indicate
that he was
involved in the affairs of VIP. On 09 December
2015, he was sent an email by Veschini informing him of his
appointment as
an interim Chairperson of the Regional Executive and
Deputy Leader of the VIP.
[51]
The effect of clause 12.8.2 of the
NPP’s constitution is that membership ceases automatically.
Accepting the construction
that membership ceases upon joining
another party, it is doubtful that dual membership is allowed even if
the third respondent
were to state that he did not join another party
but was a member of the VIP before he joined the NPP, which was known
to Chaaban.
The consequence would still be the same in that the
constitution seeks to prohibit NPP members from being members of
other political
parties.
[52]
In
consequence thereof I agree with Mr Borgström’s
proposition that no formal decision preceded by a hearing was
required
before membership was terminated.
[5]
In
Henderson
v The Democratic Alliance
supra
at para [9], in a case where the constitution of the Democratic
Alliance stated that a person’s membership
ipso
facto
ceased upon his or her conviction, it was held that upon conviction
there was no decision to end the applicant’s membership
of the
first respondent. In
Noland
v Independent Democrats
supra at para [26], Louw J held that ‘
On
the construction of the constitution, she had, by joining another
party, automatically terminated her membership, the applicant
ceased
to be a member of the ID before the end of Friday 31 August 2007
.’
[53]
Whilst I accept the NPP’s
version that a member of the NPP cannot be a member of another
political party as per clause 12.8.2,
it is strange that Jacobs who
was allegedly a leader of another party (i.e. the NCP) was involved
in the affairs of the NPP and
even tasked with ensuring that the
third respondent became its member. He even went on to sign a form
nominating the third respondent
as a councillor with the IEC. This
appears to be in conflict with clause 12.8.2. That is however not the
issue before me at this
stage.
[54]
Another issue that is apparent from
the papers is that the third respondent resigned as a councillor. It
is not clear whether his
resignation was effected and his later
withdrawal accepted. If his resignation was effected he would have
lost his membership to
the Council. The circumstances of his
resignation and withdrawal and their acceptance thereof, if any, are
not very clear from
the papers. One can therefore not speculate on
this issue without clear detail.
[55]
Nevertheless, I am satisfied for
reasons outlined above that the third respondent is not entitled to
occupy the seat as a councillor
representing the NPP in the Council.
[56]
In passing, I must mention a
worrying observation about the manner in which the councillorship was
given to the third respondent,
a non-member of the party, by a person
who was about to resign as president of the party without consulting
with the relevant members
of his party. It is also unsettling to
observe his continuing engagement with the third respondent in a
manner he did when he was
no longer the leader of the party.
[57]
Having said that the function of
this Court was to determine whether the third respondent is entitled
to hold the councillor’s
position as he contends he is. If he
was not, he could not continue to occupy the seat of a councillor on
behalf of the NPP. I
have found that he is not a member, and as a
consequence of that the Municipal Manager is bound to inform the
chief electoral officer
as such in terms of Item 18(1) (b) of
Schedule 1 of the Act.
[58]
I thought long and hard about the
issue of costs. The third respondent was nominated as councillor
after a meeting with Chaaban.
He is a current incumbent of the
position at the Council and his opposition of this application was
not unfounded. He was not legally
represented on this matter,
allegedly due to lack of funds and expressed his financial situation.
It would not be just, in my view,
to award costs against the third
respondent in these circumstances, having taken into account, the
nature of the case, the circumstances
of opposition and other
relevant factors I have already referred to.
[59]
In the result, I make the following
order:
1.
The third respondent is declared not to be
a member of the applicant and accordingly not a councillor of the
Witzenberg Municipality.
2.
There is no order as to costs.
N
P BOQWANA
Judge
of the High Court
APPEARANCES
FOR
THE APPLICANT: Adv. D Borgström
INSTRUCTED
BY: Brian Lutzno, Kraus & Associates
FOR
THE THIRD RESPONDENT: In Person
[1]
University
of Cape Town v Cape Bar Council and Another
1986 (4) SA 903
(A) at
914 D-E
[2]
See
Investigating
Directorate: Serious Economic Offences and Others v Hyundai Motor
Distributors (Pty) Ltd and Others In re: Hyundai
Motor Distributors
(Pty) Ltd and Others v Smit NO and Others
[2000] ZACC 12
;
2001
(1) SA 545
(CC) at para 22
[3]
Erasmus
Superior Court Practice,
Second
Edition, Van Loggernberg, Volume 2 at D1- 69 to 70
[4]
Erasmus
Superior Court Practice
,
supra at D1 – 73 to 74
[5]
See
Noland
v Independent Democrats, unreported judgment
case
number 13275/07, delivered on 1 April 2008, per Louw J (Erasmus J
concurring) at para 26
;Henderson
v The Democratic Alliance unreported case no. 12540/07 dated 7
December 2007 per Veldhuizen J ; Andrews v The Democratic
Alliance
Case
No. 17633/12,
unreported
judgment by Mansingh AJ