About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 540
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Sello and Others v Secretary General of the African National Congress and Another (2026/111342) [2026] ZAGPJHC 540 (18 May 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
Case
Number:
2026-111342
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: NO
18
May 2026
In the matter between:
MOGOMOTSI
SELLO
First Applicant
DOREEN
DAVIDS
Second Applicant
ANDREW
MBALISO
Third Applicant
PHINDANI
TABIWA
Fourth Applicant
BELLA
LIPHUTHING
Fifth Applicant
IPELEGENG
KOBOYANKWE
Sixth Applicant
GLADYS
KHOZA
Seventh Applicant
INATHI
MBIYO
Eighth Applicant
MORAPEDIMACHAKELA
Ninth Applicant
PARKS
MANANISO
Tenth Applicant
DUDUZILE
MBALULA
Eleventh Applicant
SABELO
DINGISWAYO
Twelfth Applicant
DITEKO
MOREOTSENYE
Thirteenth Applicant
ERIC
NGWANA
Fourteenth Applicant
DISEBO
TABANE
Fifteenth Applicant
and
SECRETARY GENERAL OF
THE
AFRICAN
NATIONAL CONGRESS
First Respondent
AFRICAN NATIONAL
CONGRESS
GAUTENG
PROVINCIAL TASK TEAM
Second
Respondent
JUDGMENT
CARELSE, AJ
[1]
This is an urgent application concerning
the West Rand Regional Conference of the African National Congress
scheduled for 18-20
May 2026.
[2]
The matter was enrolled by the applicants
for a hearing on Sunday, 17 May 2026 on an extremely urgent basis.
The application was
issued and served by email on the evening of
Friday, 15 May 2026 at 20:36. In terms of the timetable unilaterally
imposed by the
applicants in the Notice of Motion, the respondents
were effectively afforded less than 24 hours within which to deliver
answering
affidavits in a matter involving extensive papers, multiple
internal disputes, verification reports and prior litigation.
[3]
The respondents nevertheless delivered an
answering affidavit on Sunday, 17 May 2026. At the request of the
applicants, I afforded
them an opportunity to deliver a replying
affidavit and postponed the matter from Sunday, 17 May 2026, to
Monday, 18 May 2026,
at 14h00 for argument.
[4]
During argument, counsel for the applicants
confirmed that the applicants, under Part A, persisted only with
prayer 2 of the Notice
of Motion, namely an order interdicting the
commencement and/or continuation of the conference pending the
determination of internal
disputes and contemplated review
proceedings.
[5]
Counsel for the applicants further
disavowed reliance on the declaratory component contained in prayer 2
of the notice of Motion.
The applicants accordingly ultimately sought
only interdictory relief from me.
[6]
Having considered the papers, the heads of
argument and the submissions made by counsel, I am satisfied that the
application falls
to be struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
[7]
The chronology is dispositive.
[8]
The applicants’ complaints concerning
branch disputes, BGMs, verification processes and organisational
irregularities are
not recent. These disputes existed before the
conference dates were finally confirmed.
[9]
The applicants allege that on 19 April
2026, the REC met and discussed, amongst other things, disputes
relating to QR codes, branch
packages, branch disputes and conference
readiness, and that the REC concluded that the region was not ready
for conference.
[10]
The applicants further allege that a “final
verification report” had already been issued on 12 April 2026
and that certain
BGMs thereafter took place outside the prescribed
timelines.
[11]
On 5 May 2026, the first respondent issued
a directive recording that the region had attained the threshold and
directing that the
conference proceed within the period 17–22
May 2026.
[12]
The applicants, therefore, apart from their
knowledge of the said disputes, knew, at least by 5 May 2026, that
the conference would
imminently proceed.
[13]
The Certificate of Urgency further records
that the applicants decided to approach the Court after receiving
directives authorising
the conference process to proceed. The
Certificate also records that a decision was taken on 6 May 2026 to
challenge the matter
in court and consult attorneys, although during
argument it was suggested that this may have been a typographical
error. The date
nevertheless appears twice in the Certificate.
[14]
Despite all of this, the present
application was launched only on Friday evening, 15 May 2026 on
severely truncated time periods.
[15]
The answering affidavit also reveals that
prior urgent applications had already been instituted concerning the
convening of the
ANC West Rand Regional Conference and related
complaints.
[16]
The respondents further allege that there
is substantial overlap between the applicants and confirmatory
affidavits relied upon
in the various applications and that the same
attorneys acted throughout.
[17]
In addition, the respondents allege that
the second applicant, Ms Doreen Davids, denied under oath that she
had authorised the present
proceedings.
[18]
I do not make definitive findings on those
disputes. They do, however, reinforce the respondents’
contention that the applicants
had ample opportunity earlier to
approach the Court regarding substantially the same complaints
concerning the conference process.
[19]
The respondents correctly submitted that
the applicants had days, and not mere hours, within which properly to
approach the Court.
The applicants’ contention that the trigger
date/event for urgency was the correspondence from the first
respondent on 14
and 15 May 2026
cannot, in
light of the chronology set out above, be sustained.
[20]
In my view, the urgency was materially
self-created.
[21]
I am furthermore not persuaded that the
applicants will not obtain substantial redress at a hearing in due
course. The applicants
have available internal remedies through the
NDRCA process. In addition, the Part B review proceedings provide an
adequate remedy,
including the possibility of appropriate relief
should the applicants ultimately succeed. If necessary, the
applicants may also
seek an expedited hearing in due course to
address their fears of the consequences of a delay.
[22]
There is a further difficulty.
[23]
By the time argument was ultimately heard
on Monday, 18 May 2026, the conference had already commenced. Counsel
informed me that
elections to the so-called “Top 5”
positions had already taken place.
[24]
The position in which the matter now finds
itself is substantially a consequence of the applicants’ own
delay in launching
proceedings on Friday evening, despite having
known for some time that the conference would proceed during the
relevant May conference
window and thereafter seeking an opportunity
to file a replying affidavit, which in itself did not materially
advance the applicants’
case.
[25]
The relief pursued before me is
interdictory in nature and directed at preventing the commencement
and/or continuation of the conference.
That relief has now, to a
substantial extent, been overtaken by events.
[26]
What now remains is, at most, a challenge
to the validity of decisions already taken at conference and
conference outcomes generally,
which is properly a matter for review
proceedings. It is also unclear from the papers what exactly will be
done at the conference
over the remaining two days that needs to be
interdicted.
[27]
It is well recognised that courts do not
ordinarily determine issues that have become abstract or academic and
where no practical
and effective relief can be granted. While
mootness is not an absolute bar in all circumstances, this Court must
nevertheless consider
whether practical and effective relief remains
available in the form presently sought.
[28]
In the circumstances of this matter, I am
not persuaded that it is appropriate to continue determining the
matter as though the
conference had not already commenced and
substantial decisions had not already been taken.
[29]
In the result, the following order is made:
a.
The application is struck from the roll for
lack of urgency.
b.
The applicants, save for those who did not
authorise this application in their names, are ordered, jointly and
severally, to pay
the respondents’ costs on scale C, including
the costs of two counsel where so employed.
C CARELSE AJ
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
JOHANNESBURG
Date of
hearing:
18 May 2026
Date of
judgment: 18 May 2026
For
the applicants: M
Ramaili SC, assisted by M Mabona
instructed by TM Mdaka
Attorneys
For the respondents:
T Ngcukaitobi SC, assisted by Adv N Qwabe and SB Nxumalo
Instructed by Mashele
Attorneys Inc.