2

DOCTOR XHAKAZA Fifth Respondent
ERIC XAYIYA Sixth Respondent
JONGIZIZWE DLABATHI Seventh Respondent
MOIPONE MHLONGO Eighth Respondent
ABSALOM BUDELI Ninth Respondent
ZANELE NKOMO Tenth Respondent
SOCHAYILE KHANYILE Eleventh Respondent
THOKO MAGAGULA Twelfth Respondent
BULELANI MAGWANISHE Thirteenth Respondent
TISETSO MAMKETLE NKETLE Fourteenth Respondent
ANDILE MNGWEVU Fifteenth Respondent


JUDGMENT

MFENYANA J

Introduction

[1] This application served before me in the urgent court. The applicants, all
members of the first respondent (the ANC) at various branches in and around the
Ekurhuleni metropolitan, approach this court seeking urgent relief, interdicting the
respondents from holding the eighth regional conference of the ANC, Ekurhuleni
region (the regional conference ), set for 8 to 10 August 2025. They further seek
an order declaring all actions performed and decisions taken by the Ekurhuleni
Regional Task Team (the RTT) from 11 June 2025 invalid. It is not in dispute that
the applicants are all members of the ANC in good standing.

[2] The matter in itself has a long history. Of relevance is a judgment of Fisher

3

J, in Sithole1 handed down on 17 July 2023 from which the present application is
said to emanate. Having considered an application instituted by certain members
of the ANC, Fisher J set aside the 2022 regional conference of the ANC on the basis
of irregularities which dogged the conference. The court ordered a reconvening of
the conference, compliant with the ANC constitution. It is that conference which
forms the subject of this application.

[3] In these proceedings, the applicants aver that all they seek is to participate
in a regional conference that is lawful and convened validly in accordance with the
constitution of the ANC, which is a far cry from the way things unf olded after the
Sithole judgment.

Urgency
[4] The applicants contend that the mandate of the RTT having expired on 10
June 2025, any decision taken and all acts performed by the RTT thereafte r, are
null and void and fall to be set aside. They aver that, were the conference to
proceed, it would result in a repeat of the Sithole scenario, as the elections would
be unlawful and invalid processes would be institutionalised. Consequently,
litigation would thereafter ensue . This, the applicants ave r, places them in good
stead to be granted urgent relief, as the threat of irreversible harm looms large ,
given the objectionability of ex post facto, complex litigation.

1 Sithole and Others v African National Congress and Others (020623/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 810
(17 July 2023).

4

[5] Counsel submitted on behalf of the applicants that the urgency in this
application should be viewed in the context of the rights implicated in this matter;
that the applicants brought the application in defence of their constitutional rights
to political participation. Relying on Ramakatsa2, counsel submitted that a
violation of the constitution and rules of a political party entitles members to
approach the court for relief.

[6] The respondents dispute that the application is urgent , as the applicants
were aware as early as 11 June 2025 that the mandate of the RTT ha d lapsed.
Moreover, the roadmap for the conference was publicly communicated as far back
as 1 July 2025, scheduling the conference for 8 to 10 August 2025. Yet, they waited
until 6 August 2025 to bring this application , the respondents further contend .
They aver that this constitutes abuse of process which calls for the striking off of
the matter off the urgent roll and a punitive cost order against the applicants.

[7] It is so that the applicants provide no explanation for the delay and their
heedless conduct from 11 June 2025 through 6 August 2025 when these
proceedings were instituted. What they say is that because they seek to vindicate
their constitutional rights to political participation, that should supersede any
requirement to provide the respondents adequate notice of the application or bring
the application on less stringent terms.


2 Ramakatsa v Magashule 2013 (2) BCLR 202 (CC).

5

[8] It is worth considering the timeline within which this application was
brought:

a. The application was served on the various respondents from 11h34 on
6 August 2025. The notice of motion stipulates that they were to file
their answering papers by 12h00 on 7 August 2025.
b. On 7 August 2025, the respondents delivered their answering affidavit.
There is no return of service filed, but according to the Caselines audit
trail, the answering affidavit was uploaded at 22h30. According to the
applicants, this left no reasonable time for them to reply. They, in any
event elected to forgo this right.

[9] It is clear from this timeline that the applicants afforded the respondents
very little time to consider the application, instruct an attorney, brief counsel and
prepare their answer. What the applicants do not say is why it had to be so.

[10] I accept that it may have taken the applicants a little more than a day to
conceptualise the relief they seek, instruct and consult with their legal team, and
formulate their case. I however have difficulty in filling in the many blanks left
unexplained by the applicants . Armed with all the case law at their disposal and
closer to home, Sithole, the y nonetheless did not consider it necessary to act
swiftly in bringing this application. Notwithstanding, this court was called upon to
hear this matter outside the normal rules regulating urgent applications; on

6

extremely abbreviated timeframes, giving the respondents 1 day to respond to over
160 pages. It is little wonder that the respondents only managed to deliver their
answering papers in the late hours of 7 August 2025 , leaving little to no time for
the applicants to file a reply.

[11] That is not to say that the court requires a meticulous, faultless process, for
less than perfect pleadings in urgent matters are not uncommon. However, in the
circumstances of the present application, there appears to be no conceivable
reason why the applicants did not consider it prudent to approach this court
sooner. The Practice Directives stipulate that urgent matters are filed at 12h00 on
Thursday for hearing on the next Tuesday.

[12] I point out that the circumstances that prevail now remain the same as the
previous week when the applicant could have brought the application at their
leisure and still brought themselves perfectly within the parameters of the Rules
and the Practice Di rectives. They, themselves do not suggest any change of
circumstance during that time. They knew full well that there was not the luxury of
time and that their rights, as they point out, required protection.

[13] Uniform rule 6(12) sets out in clear terms that an applicant in an urgent
application must set out explicitly the circumstances which it avers render the
matter urgent and why substantial redress cannot be attained at a hearing in due
course. All that the applicants state in this regard is that the conference would

7

commence on 8 August 2025 , a fact they have known for over a month. Notably,
this also happens to be the day this application is set down for hearing. It was
submitted on behalf of the applicants that despite the conference having already
commenced, history has shown that the first day of the conference is usually
concerned with registrations and the like, with the substantive business to follow
on the later days of the conference.

[14] It does not alter the applicants’ fate, in my view, that the applicants contend
that in this application they seek to vindicate their constitutional rights. That may
be so, but it is however not the central question in these proceedings. It being an
urgent application, t he question is whether the applicants were entitled to
approach this court in the manner that they have and having done so, satisfied all
the requirements of that choice. I think not.

[15] The jurisprudence of this court is awash with authorities that a party who
creates their own urgency is not entitled to urgent relief. In those circumstances,
one would have expected the applicants to proceed with some measure of alacrity.
In those circumstances, one would have expected the applicants to proceed with
some measure of alacrity.

[16] In Dynamic Sisters Trading (Pty) Limited and Another v Nedbank Limited
(Dynamic Sisters) 3, Adams J underscored the importance of providing cogent

3 (081473/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 709 (21 August 2023).

8

reasons for dispensing with the formalities applicable in application proceedings
when instituting urgent applications The court rejected the applicants’ explanation
that they were attempting to resolve the dispute with the respondent. I associate
myself with this reasoning. As Adams J pointed to consistency and legal certainty
in dealing with self-created urgency, I add that in decisively dealing with self -
created urgency, such decision should b e accompanied by a clear message that
urgency is not for the mere taking , and that the ‘Rules of Court and Practice
Directives can only be ignored at a litigant’s peril’4.

[17] It also does not assist the situation that at the hearing of the matter, part of
the relief sought by the applicants had been abandoned . Noble as it may be that
the applicants elected even at this late hour, not to harp on certain aspects of the
relief they sought in their founding papers this, was only done after the
respondents had been put under stringent timeframes to answer to a case that
would not be proceeded with.

Conclusion
[18] This application is a textbook example of self-created urgency . There
appears to be no conceivable reason why the applicants waited until the last hour
to bring th is application . All the signs that the conference wou ld go ahead as
scheduled on 8 August 2025 were unfolding before their very eyes. Counsel for the
respondents argued that at this stage, a lot has gone into the preparation of the

4 Ibid. para 18.

10


For the respondents : B Bobison -Opoku instructed by Mokoena
Tooka Attorneys Inc.
bareng@mtainc.co.za
bobisonopoku@law.co.za


Date of hearing : 8 August 2025
Date of judgment : 9 August 2025