REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 2024-138554
In the matter between:
ALUNGILE KAMTSHE Applicant
and
SOUTH AFRICAN STUDENTS CONGRESS First Respondent
VEZINHLANHLA SIMELANE Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] The Applicant is a paid-up member and outgoing Secretary General of the First
Respondent (“SASCO”).
[2] SASCO is a voluntary association whose purpose and goals, as encapsulated in
its Constitution (“the SASCO Constitution”) are stated as follows in a written
constitution (“the constitution”):
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
______________ ____ ____
DATE SIGNATURE
5 Dec 2024
Page 2 of 5
a. To organize students in institutions of higher learning striving for the
transformation of institutions for higher learning as well as the entire higher
educational system in order to achieve a non-sexist, non-racial, non-biased
democratic education system;
b. To champion the interests of students and to ensure their access to and
success in institutions of higher learning by fighting for and championing
various student rights, including more and better accommodation, more and
better equipped libraries, and lower costs of education;
c. To achieve these various goals through mobilizing students and rallying
them towards campaigning for free higher education, as well as linking with
all relevant organizations concerned with the liberation of the oppressed,
including building women leadership.
[3] The Second Respondent is the outgoing president of SASCO. He, together with
the Applicant, are outgoing members of the outgoing National Executive
Committee (“NEC”) of SASCO.
[4] It is common cause that the term of office for the outgoing NEC lapsed on 20
November 2024.
[5] As things stand, there is a vacuum in the leadership structures of SASCO until
new office bearers are duly appointed by the membership. The applicant points
out that it is urgent for this to occur, bearing in mind the commencement of the
new academic year in January 2025.
[6] On Sunday 22 September 2024 an NEC meeting (“the September Meeting”) was
held at which it was resolved that the election of a new NEC would be held at an
Elective Congress (“the Elective Congress”) [also known as “the National
Congress”], to be held on 7 December 2024.
[7] The Second Respondent contends that the September meeting was irregular
and wants that meeting, as well as all resolutions taken thereat set aside. The
same relief is sought by the Second Respondent in respect of a National Working
Committee (NWC) held on 21 September 2024.
Page 3 of 5
[8] The Second Respondent’s claim for the setting aside of these meetings is made,
for the first time, in a counter-application launched in these proceedings on 3
December 2024.
[9] The Applicant complains of various correspondence and communications
emanating from the Second Respondent in which it is claimed that the Elective
Congress will not be taking place, as scheduled, on 7 December 2024.
[10] The Applicant seeks urgent relief against the Second Respondent to prevent
further interference with, and obstruction of, the proposed Elective Congress.
[11] The Second Respondent’s opposition rests, primarily, on the alleged irregularity
of the September meeting. For as long as that meeting has not been declared to
have been irregular , the decisions taken thereat (including the decision to
convene the Elective Congress on 7 December 2024) stand and must be
adhered to. This is the same principle which is established by the well -known
decision in Oudekraal Estates (Pty) Ltd v City of Cape Town and Others 2004
(6) SA 222 (SCA).
[12] That is, no doubt, why the Second Respondent belatedly seeks to impugn the
September meeting (and its decisions) in the counter-application.
[13] There are however two significant hurdles which are not overcome by the Second
Respondent: first, there is no evidence that all the interested parties who
attended the September meeting (and who took the decisions thereat) have been
given notice of the counter -application or have been joined as parties. A court
cannot grant an order in circumstances where such an order cannot be activated
without affecting the interests of non- joined parties who have a real and
substantial interest; and second, the Second Respondent knew about the
decisions he now wants to overturn since September 2024. To have waited until
3 December 2024 to seek urgent relief is inexcusable. Counsel for Second
Respondent put up a valiant and interesting argument that the Second
Respondent cannot be faulted for remaining supine until he was “ dragged into
court” by the applicant. That argument does not assist the Second Respondent
on the facts of this matter, where the essence of Second Respondent ’s alleged
justification for his conduct is the belief that the September meeting was irregular.
Page 4 of 5
It was for him to do something about what he perceived to be a major flaw in the
proceedings in September 2024.
[14] The Applicant, on the other hand, compellingly argues that unless an Elective
Conference is held on 7 December 2024 as determined by the NEC in
September 2024, SACSO will suffer greatly by being leaderless and unable to
deal with the pressing matters requiring the urgent attention of its structures to
fulfil SASCO’s objectives.
[15] I find that the Applicant is entitled to the urgent relief claimed and make the
following Orders:
1. The Second Respondent is interdicted from issuing communications and/or
correspondence of whatsoever nature in terms of which he advises third
party stakeholders of the First Respondent that the Elective Congress of the
First Respondent, which is scheduled for 7 December 2024 (“the Elective
Congress”), will not be held as scheduled on 7 December 2024;
2. The Second Respondent is interdicted from interfering with the logistical
arrangements, scheduling and sitting of the Elective Congress;
3. The Second Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.
________ ____
BADENHORST AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
For the Applicant S Madikizela , instructed by Shamase
Ramotswedi Attorneys
For the First Respondent Adv G.Mashigo, instructed by Mkhize
Attorneys