1
THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case no: 004/2025 EC
In the matter between:
NDABENE ELIAS NTLEBI Applicant
and
ELECTORAL COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA,
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL OFFICE First Respondent
AFRICAN NATIONAL CONGRESS,
FREE STATE PROVINCIAL OFFICE Second Respondent
MEC: COGTA FREE STATE Third Respondent
MUNICIPAL MANANGER: NALA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Fourth Respondent
AMOS GOLIATH Fifth Respondent
COUNCIL: NALA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Sixth Respondent
Neutral citation: Ndabene Elias Ntlebi v Electoral Commission of South Africa ,
Free State Provincial Office and Others (Case no 004/2025 EC)
[2025] ZASCA 04 (19 September 2025)
2
Coram: ZONDI DP and STEYN AJ and PROFESSOR NTLAMA -
MAKHANYA and PROFESSOR PHOOKO (Additional members)
Heard: Decided on the papers in chambers
Delivered: These reasons were handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal website
and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be 11h00 on
19 September 2025
Summary: Review in terms of s 20 of the Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 read
with rules 6 and 10 of the Electoral Court Rules – No case made out for urgency.
3
Judgment
__ __
Steyn AJA (Zondi DP , Professor Ntlama -Makhanya and Professor Phooko
concurring):
Introduction
[1] On 5 September 2025 this Court issued the following order:
‘1.1 The application is struck from the roll.
1.2 Reasons for this decision will be furnished later.’
What follows hereinafter are the reasons for the order.
Parties
[2] The applicant, Ndabene Elias Ntlebi ( Mr Ntlebi), was a ward councillor at the
Nala Local Municipality (the municipality). The first respondent is the Electoral
Commission of South Africa , Free State Office (the IEC F ree State), th e second
respondent is the African National Congress Free State Provincial Office (ANC), the
third respondent is the MEC of the Department of Co -operative Governance and
Traditional Affairs, Free State (COGTA) , the fourth respondent is the municipal
manager: Nala Local Municipality (the municipality) and the fifth respondent is Amos
Goliath (Mr Goliath).
[3] On 7 July 2025 the applicant sought the following relief of this Court:
‘PART A
1. That this matter be heard as one of urgency and the ordinary rules relating to timeframes
and service in terms of the Rules of this court are dispensed with;
2. Interdicting and/or staying the by-elections scheduled for 10 September 2025;
3. That order 2 above shall operate as interim relief pending the final determination of the
review application launched in Part B below;
4. That the Applicant be granted leave to approach the above Honourable Court at a later
stage, on the same papers duly amplified, for an Order in terms of Part B of this application;
4
5. That the second, and fifth respondents be ordered to pay the costs of this application;
6. Such further and/or alternative relief.
PART B
1. Reviewing and setting aside the declaration of Councillor vacancy in ward 7 at Nala Local
Municipality in relation to the applicant;
2. Reviewing and setting aside the decision of the First Respondent to accept, and act in
accordance with, such declaration;
3. Reviewing and setting aside the decision of the First Respondent to schedule a by-election
in relation to such declaration;
4. Reviewing and setting aside the by-election scheduled for 10 September 2025;
5. That the Second, and Fifth Respondents be ordered to pay the costs of this application;
6. Such further and/or alternative relief.’
The entire application has been opposed by the second, third and fifth respondents.
The first respondent informed the registrar that it will abide by the decision of this
Court.
Facts
[4] The facts of the case are briefly as follows: Mr Ntlebi was the ward councillor,
at the sixth respondent Nala Local Municipality in Bothaville (the municipality). He was
deployed by the ANC to represent them. The ANC Free State Provincial Disciplinary
Committee (ANC PDC) subjected Mr Ntlebi to a disciplinary hearing on 9 June 2025.
At this hearing it was established that Mr Ntlebi’s membership had expired in February
2025. Accordingly, the ANC PDC ruled that it no longer had jurisdiction over him since
he was no longer its member in terms of rule 4.17 of the constitution of the ANC.
[5] Mr Ntlebi was charged with various counts before the ANC PDC of
contraventions of the constitution of his party, the ANC. On 9 June 2025 a hearing was
convened by the ANC PDC, but since Mr Ntlebi ceased to be a member of the ANC,
the Committee was of the view that they lacked the necessary jurisdiction to hear the
disciplinary matter. Mr Ntlebi was informed, in writing, that he had ceased to be a
disciplinary matter. Mr Ntlebi was informed, in writing, that he had ceased to be a
member of the ANC, moreover it was the ANC that informed the municipal manager
in writing that he is no longer a member of the party and that he could no longer
represent the party.
5
[6] Pursuant to the proceedings that served before the ANC PDC, Mr Ntlebi paid
his membership fees. Despite this late payment he was, on 17 June 2025 informed of
the decision that he is no longer a member of the ANC. The ANC then advised the
Municipal Manager of the municipality to request the IEC Free State to declare a
vacancy and make preparations for the By-elections in Ward 7.
[7] At this juncture it is necessary to note that the municipality was placed under
administration and therefore COGTA was tasked to forward the request to the IEC
Free State to declare a By-election. In response to the request, IEC Free State in June
2025 published a draft time table for the Ward 7 By-election.
[8] The vacancy in Ward 7 was triggered by the fact that Mr Ntlebi was no longer
a member of the ANC and that he could no longer represent the party. Mr Ntlebi did
not challenge the ruling of the ANC PDC who held that he had ceased to be a member,
instead he decided to launch an urgent application in this Court on 7 July 2025 to
review the conduct of the IEC Free State.
[9] Mr Ntlebi invokes this Court’s jurisdiction by placing reliance on s 20(1)(a) of
the Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996, which provides:
‘(1)(a) The Electoral Court may review any decision of the Commission relating
to an electoral matter.
(b) Any such review shall be conducted on an urgent basis and be disposed of as
expeditiously as possible.’
[10] In Independent South African National Civic Organisation v Ramosie and
Another this Court held:
‘In term of s 20(1) of the Electoral Commission Act the Electoral Court may review any decision
of the Commission relating to an electoral matter and it requires the Electoral Court to conduct
any such review on an urgent basis and to dispose it as expeditiously as possible. The section
does not stipulate the period within which the review must be brought. This is dealt with in rule
6 (1) of the Rules of this Court. It provides that any party who is entitled to and wants to take
a decision of the Commission on review must lodge a comprehensive written submission with
the secretary within three days after the decision has been made. In terms of rule 10 failure to
comply with the prescribed time limits or directives of this Court will, by the mere fact thereof,
6
result in a party being barred, unless the court, on good cause shown, directs otherwise .’1
(Emphasis added.)
[11] I shall now turn to the reasons submitted by Mr Ntlebi for not bringing the
application within the prescribed time limit. Evidently, he was informed on 17 May 2025
that he had ceased to be a member of the ANC . Whether he received a reminder or
not is an issue involving the internal practices of his own political party. Any challenge
to his membership or not should have involved the party that made that decision. His
complaint is against the treatment he received from the ANC and not so much the
conduct of the IEC Free State which followed upon the request of the party that had
initially deployed him.
[12] In my view not only should Mr Ntlebi have challenged his eligibility as a member
of go od stand ing with his own political party, he should also have done so
expeditiously.
[13] It is i mportant to refer to the content of the letter that was sent by the ANC
provincial office to Mr Ntlebi on 17 June 2025 . It leaves no doubt about Mr Ntlebi’s
position. This is what is stated:
‘1. The above matter has reference.
2. This correspondence serves to confirm that Cde. Elias Ntlebi has ceased to be a member
of the ANC and cannot thereof continue to represent the ANC as a deployed ANC councillor.
3. We confirm that his disciplinary hearing was held on the 9th of June 2025 under case number
09/06/2025. A copy of the outcome of the said disciplinary hearing is hereto attached for your
easy reference.
4. We confirm that the said Mr. E. Ntlebi has been informed accordingly.
5. Kindly proceed with the necessary process of declaring a vacancy so that he can be
replaced as a matter of urgency.
6. We trust that you will find this in order and should you have any queries, please do not
hesitate to contract writer thereof.’
1 Independent South African National Civic Organisation v Ramosie and Another (0019/24 EC) [2024] ZAEC
18 (14 May 2024) para 17.
7
[14] No explanation was proffered by Mr Ntlebi to justify the de lay as to what
happened from 17 June 2025 to 7 July 2025 when he instituted the application against
the first to sixth respondents in this Court. He had failed to comply with the rules of this
Court and did not make out any case to condone his non-compliance. Accordingly, the
order issued was justified given the said reasons. On the day that he was informed of
the fact that his membership had ceased, that is the moment that the clock started
running for him.
[15] There is one more thing that should be emphasised and that is the issue that
Mr Ntlebi was no longer a member of the ANC . In my view he lacked the necessary
locus standi to apply for the relief that was pertinently sought by him in Part A and Part
B of the notice of motion. Since this Court decided the matter on urgency, it is not
necessary to analyse the merits and demerits of his application. An analysis of the
merits would not be in the intere sts of justice it would merely serve as preventative
measure to avoid any fruitless applications in the future.
Costs
[16] As a general rule, cost orders are not imposed upon a losing party in elect oral
matters. The rule is however not inflexible where there are strong reasons justifying
such a departure. I have come to the conclusion that a costs order is not warranted
and accordingly I had not ordered any costs.
[17] These are the reasons for the order issued on 5 September 2025, as set out in
paragraph [1] above.
________________________
E J S STEYN
ACTING JUDGE OF THE ELECTORAL COURT
Written submissions:
8
For the applicant: Z Feni
Qhali Attorneys Inc., Johannesburg,
Makubalo Attorneys, Bloemfontein
For the first respondent: No written submissions
For the second respondent : M Lepaku Modimolle
SMO Seobe Attorneys Inc., Bloemfontein
For the 3rd and 5th respondent: S S Jonase
State Attorney, Bloemfontein.