IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN
JUDGMENT
Case Number: 2025-016193
2025-072494
2025-071795
In the application for intervention of: Case Number: 2025 – 156411
ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS Intervening party
And
AFRIFORUM NPC First Respondent
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Respondent
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE Third Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Fourth Respondent
CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE Fifth Respondent
In re matter between: Case Number: 2025 – 072494
AFRIFORUM NPC
And
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Second Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Third Respondent
CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL LEGISLATURE Fourth Respondent
In the application for Intervention of: Case Number: 2025 – 071795
ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS Intervening Party
and
VADERLAND STIGTING AND 2 OTHERS Respondent
In re: Case Number: 2025-071795
VADERLAND STIGTING Applicant
And
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS AND INFRASTRUCTURE Second Respondent
In the application for Intervention of: Case Number: 2025-016193
EMPEROR THEMBU 2ND VOTANI MAJOLA Intervening Applicant
In re: Case Number: 2025-016193
DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE Applicant
And
MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS & INFRASTRUCTURE First Respondent
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Respondent
PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Second Respondent
CHAIRPERSON OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL OF PROVINCES Third Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY Fourth Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE LIMPOPO PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Fifth Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE MPUMALANGA PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Sixth Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE GAUTENG PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Seventh Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE NORTH-WEST PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Eight Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE KWAZULU-NATAL PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Ninth Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE FREE STATE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Tenth Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL
LEGISLATURE Eleventh Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE WESTERN CAPE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURE Twelfth Respondent
SPEAKER OF THE NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCIAL
LEGISLATURE Thirteenth Respondent
Coram: GOLIATH, DJP
Heard: 02 March 2026
Delivered: 12 May 2026
_________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
1. The applicant, Emperor Thembu 2 nd Votani Majola is admitted as amicus
curiae in terms of Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court in the matter of
Democratic Alliance v Minister of Public Works and Others, Case number
2025-016193.
2. Emperor Thembu 2nd Votani Majola is given leave to file written submissions
no later than 15 July 2026 and present oral argument at the hearing of the
main matter.
3. There shall be no order as to costs in the intervention application of Emperor
Thembu 2nd Votani Majola.
4. The EFF is granted leave to intervene in the application under the case
number 2025-156411 and is joined as the sixth respondent in the application.
5. The EFF is granted leave to file an answering affidavit within 15 days from the
date of this order to the founding affidavit of AfriForum in the main application
and to the founding affidavit of IRR LEGAL NPC, which has been joined as
the second applicant in AfriForum’s main application.
6. AfriForum and IRR LEGAL NPC shall be entitled to file a replying affidavit to
the EFF’s answering affidavit.
7. EFF is given leave to file written submissions no later than 15 July 2026 and
present oral argument at the hearing of the main matter.
8. There shall be no order as to costs in the intervention application of the EFF.
9. The application to strike out is dismissed with no order as to costs.
________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________________________
GOLIATH, DJP
[1] This matter has its genesis in various applications by multiple applicants to
be admitted as amicus curiae in the matter of AfriForum NPC v the President of
South Africa and 3 Others in which it challenges the constitutionality of the
Expropriation Ac t, 13 of 2024 , together with further and ancillary relief. Similar
applications were launched by the Democratic Alliance (“DA”) under case number :
2025-016193 and the Vaderland Stigting under case number: 2025-071795. At the
hearing of the intervention applications, all applica tions, save for one were settled by
agreement between the parties, and orders were granted admitting the applicants as
amici.
[2] Consequently, three issues remained outstanding for adjudication . First , an
application to intervene by Emperor Thembu 2nd Votani Majola which was opposed
by the D A, and second an application to strike out certain matter contained in the
founding affidavit of the Economic Freedom Fighters (“EFF”) application to intervene.
The DA submitted that it does not oppose the EFF’s application to intervene in
principle but merely disagree with the EFF ’s contentions regarding the further
conduct of the matter. Furthermore, Liberty F ighters Network had withdrawn its
application to intervene, which withdrawal was opposed by the D A in the absence of
a tender to pay costs. However, following the filing of written submissions on the
issue of costs by Liberty Fighters Network, the DA withdrew its application for a costs
order against them.
Application to intervene Emperor Majola
[3] Emperor Thembu 2 nd Votani Majola launched an applicatio n to intervene in
the Expropriation Act constitutional challenge . He is a corporate lawyer and legal
practitioner for more than 31 years, currently serving as the Executive Chairman of
Thembuland Royal Treasury Holdings Ltd. He contended that he brings this
application in his personal capacity in his own interest s, on behalf of various land
claimants, in the public interests, and on behalf of the Nation of AbaThembu.
[4] Emperor Majola is the Senior King of the AbaThembu Nation emanating from
the Senior House of Mvelase. He submitted t hat the D alindyebo Family from the
Junior House assumed the Kingship of the AbaThembu . He alluded to the fact that
the Kingship appointment impacted negatively on the protection of land rights and
cultural norms of the AbaThembu Nation.
[5] He provided a detailed history and genealogy of the AbaThembu as a Nation
consisting of 36 million people scattered in all nine provinces in South Africa. He
emphasized that by virtue of his senior position in AbaThembu he is actively involved
in the preservation, promotion and protection of the identity, t raditions, culture,
customs, norms and values of AbaThembu. He submitted that he is duly mandated
to protect the social development, economic interests and land rights of AbaThembu,
which includes the return of all ancestral land expropriated from AbaThembu.
[6] He is actively involved in land claims, parliamentary discussions, fundraising,
petitions, and policy development on land restitution . He contends that land
claimants had been waiting for more than 25 years for land restitution, and delays in
the finalisation of the Expropriation Act may delay this process further . He alluded to
the fact that the interests of AbaThembu were not adequately protected due to
political forces and the des truction of traditional Aba Thembu institutions and
leadership.
[7] He contends that the reli ef sought by the DA seeks to have the Expropriation
Act nullified, which would create undue hardship for South Africans in general, and
AbaThembu in particular. He argued that the argument of the D A is fatally and
legally unsound . He stated that there are alternative mechanisms to deal with the
challenges to the Expropriation Act, which is cost effective, expedient and will protect
the interests of the land rights of AbaThembu. Emperor Majola therefore claims that
he has a direct and substantial interest in this matter insofar as he represents and is
mandated to act on behalf of the AbaThembu.
[8] The DA submitted that the applicant does not meet the high threshold set to
intervene in the matter. It submitted that Emperor Majola has not laid sufficient basis
for the contention that the legal right implicated in the DA’s application impacts on
the rights of the AbaThembu Nation and his land rights. Furthermore, his founding
affidavit does not disclose (a) the land over which he and the AbaThembu have a
right and (b) why the DA’s application will prejudicially impact those rights to land.
[9] The DA argued that its application does not raise wide -ranging, controversial
issues relating to land reform and expropriation, hence the submissions sought to be
made by the applicant are not relevant to the DA’s challenge , nor will it assist the
Court to reach a just outcome . The DA emphasised that th ere are constitutional and
statutory mechanisms available to deal with land restitution issues affecting
AbaThembu.
[10] Under Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules of Court, 1 it is well -settled that when a
court is called upon to exercise its discretion on whether to grant leave to intervene,
the primary consideration is whether the applicant for intervention has a direct and
1 Rule 12 provides:
“Any person entitled to join as a plaintiff or liable to be joined as a defendant in any action may, on
notice to all parties, at any stage of the proceedings apply for leave to intervene as a plaintiff or
defendant. The court may upon such application make such order, including any order as to costs, and
give such directions as to further procedure in the action as to it may seem meet.”
substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation.
[11] It is not disputed that colonialism and apartheid impacted on land rights which
triggered constitutional reforms to addr ess historical injustices related to land
ownership particularly through land restitution and redistribution.2 The papers filed in
this matter in the multiple intervention applications provide a broad overview of the
efforts and challenges to redistribute land to those who have been dispossessed
based on principles of justice and equity. The issue of expropriation with or without
compensation is of great significance. Considering the South African history of
apartheid, the impact of the policy on land distribution and subsequent constitutional
mechanisms to effect redistribution and restitution, the rights of AbaThembu cannot
be discounted.
[12] The reintroduction of a new legislative framework for the expropriation of land
is of paramount importance and elicit overwhelming public interest. The applicant
holds a senior position in the Aba Thembu, has considerable institutional knowledge
of its land disputes, and is duly mandated to represent the interests of AbaThembu in
all aspects related to land reform in traditional and cultural context , which would
include issues such as a legal framework for the expropriation of land. Amici already
admitted to these proceedings are also involved in advocacy in land rights and hold
similar mandates as Emperor Majola.
[13] The applicant also represents a different constituency which is distinguishable
from all the amici admitted to these proceedings, namely a specific vulnerable
2 Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces
and Others [2016] ZACC 22; 2016 (5) SA 635 (CC); 2016 (10) BCLR 1277 (CC) (LAMOSA) at para 1
and 63.
constituency that suffered because of land dispossession. In my view it would not be
just and equitable to allow other amici to intervene and exclude Emperor Majola.
[14] The Constitutional Court has held that whilst a direct and substantial interest
is a necessary condition for intervention as a party, it is not always sufficient ground
for granting leave to intervene. The ultimate test is whether, in a particular case, it is
in the interests of justice to join or be joined as a party to pending litigation. 3 I am
accordingly satisfied that the applicant had established a direct and substantial
interest in the legal challenge , and if I should err in this regard , that it is in the
interests of justice that applicant be granted leave to intervene.
Application to Strike
[15] AfriForum filed an application seeking to st rike paragraphs 7. 2 up to and
including paragraph 7.8 of the founding affidavit in the EFF’s application for leave to
intervene, on the grounds that the said paragraphs contain scandalous, and/or
vexatious, and/or irrelevant matter. AfriForum submitted that the matter complained
of are baseless, abusive and defamatory , and included in the intervention and main
application merely to harass and create atmosphere against AfriForum and its CEO,
Mr Kriel. It was contended that the paragraphs are frivolous, improper, and stated
with insufficient grounds and mostly based on unfounded hearsay and merely
intended to harass or annoy. AfriForum therefore argued that the impugned
paragraphs are irrelevant to the merits to be determined in the intervention
application and the main application.
[16] EFF submitted that it was not in a position to respond to the striking out since
3Gory v Kolver NO and Others (Starke and Others Intervening) [2006] ZACC 20; 2007 (3) BCLR 249 (CC); 2007
(4) SA 97 (CC).
the application falls within the parameters of Uniform Rule 23(2) as a self-standing
application which allows for certain procedures and specific timeframes. EFF argued
that there was no founding affidavit in support of the striking out application and
AfriForum had failed to comply with the timeframes set out in Rule 23 .
Consequently, EFF was not given a proper opportunity to respond to the striking out
application.
[17] EFF contended that no condonation was sought for the non -compliance with
the Rules of Court. EFF submitted that an application to strike should not be
conflated with an application to intervene. EFF therefore argued that it was only
prepared to answer an application for intervention and noted that it will be prejudiced
if it is compelled to respond to a non-compliant application to strike.
[18] EFF argued that the allegations contained in these paragraphs are relevant to
the merits of the case and that the court hearing the main application should
consider the application to strike, not the court he aring the intervention application .
According to EFF the court hearing the intervention application should not tamper
with the “fabric” of the main application at this stage . EFF noted that AfriForum
responded extensively to the impugned paragraphs which will be allowed to stand if
the application to strike is granted.
[19] AfriForum argued that Rule 23 (2) was not applicable in this matter , and that
the EFF had an adequate opportunity since December 2025 to respond to paragraph
12 of Mr Kriel’s answering affidavit. Furthermore, AfriForum had notified EFF that the
application to strike will be heard simultaneously with the application for intervention.
AfriForum stated that even if EFF mistakenly believed that Rule 23 (2) was
applicable, it should have filed opposing papers accordingly, which it had failed to
do.
[20] AfriForum submitted that there is no merit in any of the technical objections
raised by EFF. It was submitted that Rule 6( 15) contains no provisions as to when
the application is to be brought or how it is to be set down , and that it can be brought
at the hearing of the main application itself . Furthermore, a notice that a striking-out
application will be launched may also be given in the affidavit in which response is
made to the affidavit containing the objectionable matter , as AfriForum has done in
paragraph 9 of its answering affidavit. AfriForum argued that EFF will not suffer any
prejudice if the offending paragraphs are struck since the allegations have nothing to
do with the merits of the case.
[21] In terms of Rule 6 (15) the court may on application order to strike out from
any affidavit any matter which is scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant , with an
appropriate order as to costs. This matter clearly involves the striking of matter
contained in an affidavit . I am accordingly in agreement with AfriForum that the
striking out application invokes the provisions of Rule 6 (15) since Rule 23 (2)
generally relates to pleadings, declarations, pleas or replications.
[22] The requirements for a successful striking out application within the meaning
of Rule 6 (15) were articulated in Beinash v Wixley 4 It is trite that a court will only
grant such an order if: (1) the matter is indeed scandalous, vexatious, or irrelevant;
4 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA) at 733A-B.
and (2) the applicant for the strike -out will be prejudiced if the matter is not removed.
AfriForum submitted that the impugned paragraphs fall within all three categories
and falls to be struck. The onus of showing that the allegations must be struck out
rests on the Applicant.
[23] What is apparent from a proper reading of the said Rule is that even if all the
requirements are met, the court has an overriding discretion to strike out or not 5.
The court has a discretion which should be exercised judiciously. The key
consideration as can be seen from the Rule and case law cited, is that of prejudice.6
[24] It has been held that the striking out procedure is not intended to be utilised to
make technical objections which merely serve to increase costs and are of no
advantage to the litigating parties. It is for these reasons that sufficient degree of
prejudice should be present and such proof of prejudice is required.7
[25] The Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 has triggered a constitutional challenge with
multiple interested parties seeking leave to intervene. Some political parties
opposed the final version of the Bill during the Parliamentary process and voted
against the Bill. It was a highly contested Bill, falling squarely within with the politico-
legal sphere.8 It is therefore inevitable that interested parties will have
competing policy arguments, different ideological perspectives and make statements
which are politically driven.
5 Rail Commuter’s Action Group v Transnet Ltd 2006 (6) SA 68 at 83E.
6 Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA) at 733B-734A; Helen Suzman Foundation v President of the Republic
of South Africa and Others 2015 (2) SA 1 (CC) at paras 27-28.
7 Anderson and Another v Port Elizabeth Municipality 1954(2) SA 299E; Msunduzi Municipality v Natal Joint
Pension Fund and Others 2007 (1) SA 142 N at 150A-B.
8 Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others v Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces and
Others [2016] ZACC 22; 2016 (5) SA 635 (CC); 2016 (10) BCLR 1277 (CC) (LAMOSA) at para 1.
[26] It is evident that since 18 February 2026 the EFF was aware of the application
to strike-out certain paragraphs of its founding affidavit and was therefore not taken
by surprise. The alleged offending paragraphs we re identifiable ex facie the papers
on record, and the EFF elected not to respond based on technical grounds, which if
upheld, would trigger unnecessary costs in this matter. However, I am satisfied that
the application to strike out is adequately formulated and substantially complies with
the provisions of Rule 6 (11) and 6 (15) to allow for a speedy resolution of the
interlocutory application.
[27] Although the EFF elected not file opposing papers, Afr iForum has an onus to
prove prejudice. AfriForum strongly criticized the E FF’s averments in the impugned
paragraphs, as well it’s approach and political posture adopted towards AfriForum .
Significantly, AfriForum responded fully to the impugned paragraphs in paragraphs
12.5 to 12.17 of AfriForum’s answering affidavit. In its Heads of Argument AfriForum
contended that the prejudice it sufferers are apparent from these paragraphs .
However, I am not persuaded that AfriForum ha d demonstrated prejudice or
adequately dealt with the issue of prejudice in its founding papers.
[28] Expropriation is a matter of significant political and constitutional importance
in South Africa. The Expropriation Act 13 of 2024 has been the subject of
widespread debate and discourse both locally and internationally. A healthy
democracy demands robust debate, tolerance, and broadmindedness when dealing
with politico -legal matters. Land matters always elicit overwhelming public interest
and political commentary. It was pointed out by the Constitutional Court in
Democratic Alliance v African National9 that:
“Political life in democratic South Africa has seldom been polite, orderly and
restrained. It has always been loud, rowdy and fractious. That is not a bad
thing. Within the boundaries the Constitution sets, it is good for democracy,
good for social life and good for individuals to permit as much open and
vigorous discussion of public affairs as possible.”
[29] The Court is satisfied that AfriForum’s challenge to the constitutionality of
certain provisions of the Expropriation Act is based on sound legal principles and
considerations which it is entitled to ventilate in a court of law. EFF did not file any
opposing papers in the striking application. Although the application to strike falls to
be dismissed at this stage, there is nothing to preclude AfriForum from launching the
application afresh, should it be advised to do so on appropriate papers.
[30] With regard to costs, it is a trite principle of our law that a court considering an
order of costs exercises a discretion that must be exercised judicially. 10 I have
considered the matters before me, and in the exercise of my discretion, I deem it
appropriate that no costs order be made in all the matters before this court.
[31] In the result, the following Order is made:
31.1. The applicant, Emperor Thembu 2 nd Votani Majola is admitted as
amicus curiae in terms of Rule 16A of the Uniform Rules of Court in the
matter of Democratic Alliance v Minister of Public Works and Others,
9 2015 (2) SA 232 (CC) at paragraph 133.
10Ferreira v Levin NO and Others; Vryenhoek and Others v Powell NO and Others 1996 (2) SA 621 (CC) para 3.
Case number 2025-016193.
31.2. Emperor Thembu 2 nd Votani Majola is given leave to file written
submissions no later than 15 July 2026 and present oral argument at
the hearing of the main matter.
31.3. There shall be no order as to costs in the intervention application of
Emperor Thembu 2nd Votani Majola.
31.4. The EFF is granted leave to intervene in the application under the case
number 2025 -156411 and is joined as the sixth respondent in the
application.
31.5. The EFF is granted leave to file an answering affidavit within 15 days
from the date of this order to the founding affidavit of AfriForum in the
main application and to the founding affidavit of IRR LEGAL NPC,
which has been joined as the second applicant in AfriForum’s main
application.
31.6. AfriForum and IRR LEGAL NPC shall be entitled to file a replying
affidavit to the EFF’s answering affidavit.
31.7. EFF is given leave to file written submissions no later than 15 July
2026 and present oral argument at the hearing of the main matter.
31.8. There shall be no order as to costs in the intervention application of the
EFF.
31.9. The application to strike out is dismissed with no order as to costs.
______________________________________
DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT GOLIATH
Appearances
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
The DA’s application
For the DA: Karrisha Pillay SC
Eshed Cohen
Instructed by: Mr T Valentyn
Minde Schapiro & Smith
For the first respondent: Anton Katz SC
Monique Davis
Instructed by: Mr A Strauss
For the third to thirteenth respondents: Tembeka Ngcukaitobi SC
Lerato Zikhalale
Natalie Chesi-Buthulezi
Ntokozo Qwabe
Instructed by: Mr M Mureriwa
Mphokane Attorneys
Intervening parties
For the Economic Freedom Fighters Mfesane KaSiboto
Jade Naidoo
Instructed by: Ms A Charalambous
England Slabbert Attorneys Inc
For Emperor Thembu 2nd Votani Majola Self-represented
For the Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform Mr Ngwenya
Instructed by: State Attorney
Applicants for admission as amicus
For “we the people” Self-represented
For Liberty Fighters Network and MR Reyno de Beer Self-represented
For Society for the Protection of Our Constitution T Strydom SC
Instructed by: Ms Yasmin Omar
For National Association against
Managing Agents (NPC) Self-represented
For Zabalaza Pathways Institute Thembalihle Sidaki
Akhona Busakwe
Instructed by:
Lubabalo Ntsholo Attorneys