IN THE ELECTORAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(HELD AT BLOEMFONTEIN)
Not Reportable
Case no: 005/25EC
In the matter between:
LEPHALALE RESIDENTS PARTY First Applicant
PIET DIBETSO Second Applicant
and
THE INDEPENDENT ELECTORAL
COMMISSION OF SOUTH AFRICA First Respondent
MOHAU RONALD MJAKULA Second Respondent
LEPHALALE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
Neutral citation: Lephalale Residents Party and Another v The Independent
Electoral Commission of South Africa (005/25EC) [2026]
ZAEC 01 (03 July 2026)
Coram: ZONDI DP and STEYN and MANGCU-LOCKWOOD AJJ,
PROFESSOR NTLAMA-MAKHANYA and PROFESSOR PHOOKO
(ADDITIONAL MEMBERS)
2
Heard: Matter was disposed of without oral hearing in terms of s 19(a) of the
Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives via email, by publication on the website of the Supreme
Court of Appeal and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is
deemed to be 11:00 on 03 July 2026.
Summary: Leadership dispute under s 20(2A) of the Electoral Commission Act 51
of 1996 – application to remove the name of a leader of the political party from the
records of the Electoral Commission - application dismissed.
ORDER
The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Mangcu-Lockwood AJ (Zondi DP, Steyn AJ, Professors Ntlama-Makhanya and
Phooko concurring)
A. Introduction
[1] This is an application in terms of s 20(2A) of the Electoral Commission Act
51 of 1996 (the Act) to compel the first respondent, the Independent Electoral
Commission of South Africa (the IEC) to remove the name of the second respondent,
Mohau Ronald Mjakula (Mr Mjakula) from its records as the party leader of the first
applicant, the Lephalale Residents Party (the party), and for the third respondent, the
Lephalale Local Municipality (the Municipality) to cancel his appointment as a
proportional representative (PR) councillor. An order is also sought for his
replacement at those institutions by Lesiba George Moloantoa (Mr Molantoa).
[2] The application is only opposed by Mr Mjakula, who has filed an answering
affidavit. There is no replying affidavit from the applicants. The deponent to the
founding affidavit is the deputy chairperson of the party, who brings the application
on its behalf, and states that he has such authority by virtue of his position.
4
[3] The basis for the application is that , after being invited to attend three
consecutive meetings of the executive committee of the party on 9, 11 and 13
December 2020, Mr Mjakula was dismissed due to not only his failure to attend, but
also a string of alleged misconduct, described as follows: failing to convene and
attend meetings; drinking alcohol while attending meetings; insulting party members
telephonically; failing to attend disciplinary hearings three times after being duly
invited to attend; and unilaterally appointing on social media a non-member of the
party as the chairperson during a stay in hospital . Two other members of the
executive committee were purportedly expelled from the party at the meeting of 13
December 2020, namely Ms Anna Malete and Ms Aletta Nare.
[4] The applicants have attached copies of WhatsApp messages sent to Mr
Mjakula as invitations to the meetings of 9 and 11 December 2020, but not for 13
December 2020. On 7 January 2021 , the executive committee decided to suspend
Mr Mjakula as chairperson. Thereafter, he was notified of impending disciplinary
proceedings against him, though no date was provided with the notification, and no
proof was attached. On 31 October 2021, Mr Mjakula was dismissed in absentia .
The applicants have attached a notice of his dismissal, but it is undated.
[5] On an unspecified date , the party voted for the appointment of the then
Secretary-General, Mr Moloantoa, as the PR councillor representing the party. A
letter from the IEC addressed to the Municipality dated 7 January 2022 confirmed
that Mr Moloantoa indeed replaced another member, Mr Makopo, who had ceased
to hold office as the PR councillor.
5
[6] According to the applicant s, Mr Moloantoa served as PR councillor from
January 2022 until July 2024 , when they received a letter from the Municipality
stating that it had received notification dated 2 July 2024 from the party informing
it of Mr Moloantoa’s expulsion from the party. The applicants state they have no
knowledge of the letter of 2 July 2024.
[7] On 21 August 2024 , the applicants’ attorneys addressed a letter to the IEC
complaining about its continued recognition of Mr Mjakula as the chairperson of the
party despite being informed of his dismissal as a member and chairperson. The
response from the IEC, dated 23 August 2024, conveyed its stance that it viewed the
matter as an internal party dispute relating to membership and /or leadership and
directed the party to s 20(2A) of the Act.
[8] On 10 September 2024 , the IEC declared that Mr Mjakula (being the
candidate at the top of the party list for the party) was replacing Mr Moloantoa as
PR councillor on account of his expulsion. On 18 September 2024, the Municipality
notified Mr Moloantoa of his replacement by Mr Mjakula as PR councillor, with
effect from 12 September 2024.
B. The second respondent’s case
[9] Mr Mjakula denies recei ving invitations to attend the meetings of 9, 11 and
13 December 2020. He also denies receiving notification of suspension on 7 January
2021, and of the impending disciplinary proceedings against him. And while he does
not specifically deny receipt of the dismissal notice, he denie s the allegations
surrounding his dismissal in generalised terms.
[10] The main contention throughout his answering affidavit is that there was no
policy or agreed procedure for calling meetings or proceeding with disciplinary
6
processes without his involvement as the party chairperson. He states that neither
the party’s constitution nor any other document provides for such.
[11] In addition, Mr Mjakula relies on two letters attached to his affidavit, which
are not mentioned in the founding papers. One was from the party to the IEC, dated
4 November 2020, headed ‘New Executive Members’, and it advised that the
executive committee had agreed to change its structure due to the misconduct of the
three now-expelled members. The other was the IEC’s response dated 29 January
2021,1 confirming that, in terms of regulation 9, Mr Mjakula was recognised as the
leader of the party and that any changes to the party structure must emanate from the
leader or contact person of the party. The IEC further noted that it was evident that
there was a leadership dispute and directed the pa rties to the provisions of s 20 of
the Act.
C. Discussion
[12] Mr Mjakula has raised certain preliminary points. First, is the applicability of
s 20(2A) of the Act. He contends that the dispute does not relate to membership or
leadership of a registered party but rather to the IEC’s refusal to accede to the party’s
request for his name to be removed as the political party leader and cancellation of
his appointments as PR councillor. He states that the applicable provisions are ss
20(1)(a), (b), 20(2)(a) and (b) of the Act, read with rules 5(1) and 6(1) of the Rules
Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Electoral Court.
[13] But no review is sought in these proceedings. There is no specific conduct or
decision of the IEC or Municipality sought to be attacked by the applicants. Rather,
1 The letter seems to be erroneously dated 2020 instead of 2021. The error is apparent from the fact that it was a
response to the applicant’s letter of 4 November 2020.
7
the applicants seek a mandatory order compelling the IEC and the Municipality to
effectively recognise its new leadership, relying on the purported dismissal of Mr
Mjakula. Contrary to what is claimed in the answering affidavit, the whole basis for
the applicants’ application is a dispute relating to the membership and leadership of
Mr Mjakula. Section 20 (2A) is wide in its ambit, and in my view, would include the
relief sought. It provides as follows:
‘The Electoral Court may hear and determine any dispute relating to membership, leadership,
constitution or founding instruments of a registered party.’
[14] I accordingly find no merit in the first preliminary challenge. Mr Mjakula also
takes issue with the authority of the second respondent to bring these proceedings
on behalf of the party. Indeed, there is no authority or resolution annexed to the
founding affidavit for the second applicant to bring the application on behalf of the
party. The second applicant’s averment that he has the authority to bring these
proceedings by virtue of his position is not supported by the provisions of the party’s
constitution. It simply states the following regarding the powers of a deputy
chairperson:
‘Vice Chairperson is a subordinate to the chairperson, is sometimes chosen to assist and serve as
chairperson in the latter’s absence or when a motion involving the chairperson is being discussed.’2
[15] Another preliminary point concerns the delay in notifying the IEC of the
alleged change in the party’s leadership following the dismissal of Mr Mjakula as
chairperson. Mr Mjakula points to regulation 9 of the Registration of Political
Parties, 2004, which provides as follows:
2 Annexure “LRP1” para 15.
8
‘Any change in the particulars furnished in Annexure 1 must be notified to the Chief Electoral
Officer in writing within 30 days after such change by the registered contact person or the leader
of the party.’
Annexure 1 is the application form containing particulars of a political party, for
purposes of its registration.
[16] He points to his alleged dismissal, which occurred in October 2021, and to the
fact that the IEC appears to have only been notified by letter from the applicants’
attorneys dated 21 August 2024, sent just before the launch of these proceedings on
about 20 September 2024 .3 That would have been well after the 30 -day period
provided in regulation 9.
[17] While it is true that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the IEC was
notified of Mr Mjakula’s dismissal of 31 October 2021 prior to 21 August 2024, that
delay is not a bar for the applicants to approach this Court for the relief they seek.
The time requirements in regulation 9 self -evidently apply when political party
particulars are furnished to the Chief Electoral Officer of the IEC, not to proceedings
of this Court.
[18] Apart from the preliminary issues discussed, the applicants have failed to
establish that the alleged dismissal of Mr Mjakula was procedurally fair. It remains
in dispute whether Mr Mjakula did indeed receive notification to attend meetings on
9 and 11 December 2020, and the applicants have failed to rebut his denials . There
remains no proof of an invitation for Mr Mjakula to attend the meeting on 13
December 2020 . Neither is there proof that Mr Mjakula was notified of his
3 It is unclear when the founding papers were served upon Mr Mjakula. The original copy bears a sheriff’s stamp dated
10 April 2025. Mr Mjakula’s notice of intention to oppose, and the answering affidavit were delivered on 11August
2025.
9
suspension of 7 January 2021, nor of the impending disciplinary proceedings against
him. And as I have already mentioned, the notification letter of dismissal attached to
the founding papers is undated and is also not accompanied by proof of receipt by
Mr Mjakula.
[19] The constitution of the party provides as follows , at paragraph 17, regarding
disciplinary procedure:
‘lf a member of a executive break the following rules Chairperson set a meeting and call for that
person who broke the law and discuss whether that person is given writing warning, suspended or
reshuffled with immediate effect due to our disciplinary procedures.
FOLLOWING RULES.
• lf you come late more than five (5) times
• No more than three (3) apologies allowed.
• Offensive words are not allowed.
• Alcohol prohibited during time of work.’
[20] At the very least, what is envisaged in these provisions is that there should be
communication with the transgressor, hence the express requirements to ‘call for that
person who broke the law’ and to ‘discuss’. The subject matter of th at
communication, according to the provisions, includes the arrangement of a meeting,
the process to be followed, and the sanction to be meted out . That interpretation
accords with the rules of natural justice by which a political party is bound, which
require, amongst other things, that prior to disciplinary action being taken, notice
should be given and that the person should be heard.4
4 Magashule v Ramaphosa [2021] ZAGPJHC 88; [2021] 3 All SA 887 paras 108–110.
10
[21] It must be remembered that the terms of the contractual relationship between
a political party and its members are contained in the constitution of the party, and
that there is no inherent right residing in a voluntary association such as a political
party to take action to expel a member. 5 Furthermore, expulsion is the most drastic
form of punishment which a voluntary association can impose on its members and
the power to do so must accordingly appear expressly or by necessary implication
from the provisions of its constitution.6 The law accordingly provides that a member
may only be expelled by a structure of the voluntary association entrusted with the
power of expulsion expressly or by clear and unambiguous implication , and a
purported expulsion by a structure other than one in which this power is vested in
terms of the constitution will be ultra vires and unlawful.7
[22] Although I accept that the charges levelled against Mr Mjakula are infractions
which are specifically proscribed in the party’s constitution and, if proved, may lead
to dismissal, and that a properly constituted executive committee is entitled to hold
him accountable, there are also clauses in the party’s constitution which support his
contention that his dismissal was not authorised, including paragraph 17, to which I
have already referred. In particular, the following clauses are relevant:
‘15. Executives.
Chairperson – Mohau Ronald Mjakula
. . .
Chairperson is responsible for making sure that each meeting is planned effectively, conducted to
the constitution and that matters are dealt with in an orderly, efficient manner and also must make
the most of all his/her committee members, building and leading the team.
16. Election procedures
5 Matlholwa v Mahuma and others [2009] ZASCA 29; [2009] 3 All SA 238 (SCA) (Matlholwa) para 8. Yiba and
others v African Gospel Church 1999 (2) SA 949 (C) at 960D-961B.
6 Matlholwa op cit.
7 Matlholwa op cit.
11
When voting Chairperson set a meeting and allow all members (the executives (10)) to attend a
meeting and allow members to participate on a voting and after the votes is where we count the
votes and go for majority.
17. Disciplinary procedures
If a member of a executive break the following rules Chairperson set a meeting and call for that
person who broke the law and discuss whether that person was given writing warning, suspended
or reshuffled with immediate effect due to our disciplinary procedures.’
[23] Even if these provisions were interpreted generously in favour of the
executive committee’s power to act in the absence of the chairperson, the application
still falls short of establishing that lawful procedural steps were taken in dismissing
him. Furthermore, the decisions appear to have been taken by the newly constituted
executive committee, w hose names are not the ones specified as the executive
committee in paragraph 15 of the constitution. Those names are also the names that
the party submitted to the IEC in its letter of 4 November 2020 , and which were
rejected by the IEC for failure to comply with regulation 9. This raises questions
about the lawfulness of the new executive committee’s decisions.
[24] There are other anomalies in the applicants’ application. For example, it is not
explained why, on 7 January 2022 , Mr Moloantoa replac ed Mr Makopo as PR
councillor and not Mr Mjakula, given that this appears to have been the intention
following his dismissal. On the other hand, Mr Mjakula states he opened a criminal
case about this PR appointment, and specifically how the IEC approved it, given its
previous stance. He has provided a CAS number 185/2/2022. There has been no
reply to these allegations.
[25] There are also unexplained time gaps in the application. The first is between
the alleged suspension of Mr Mjakula in January 2021 and his dismissal on 31
October 2021. The second has already been mentioned earlier, and it concerns the
12
period between Mr Mjakula’s dismissal on 31 October 2021 and the notification of
the dismissal to the IEC on 21 August 2024. Although the applicants seek an order
compelling the IEC to remove the name of Mr Mjakula from its records pursuant to
his dismissal on 31 October 2021, there is no detail provided regarding their
interactions with the IEC, if any, apart from the letter from their attorneys dated 21
August 2024. At the same time, Mr Mjakula has continued to operate a parallel
structure, also referred to as the Lephalale Residents Party, with a different executive
committee, while the IEC has continued to recognise him as the party chairperson.
What is apparent is that on 23 August 2024,8 the IEC repeated what it had already
stated in the letter of 29 January 2021 ,9 namely that the applicants should pursue
relief in terms of s 20 and/or 20(2A) of the Act, which the applicants have now finally
done in these proceedings. The court is left in the dark regarding what occurred in
the intervening period.
[26] Lastly, there is no case made out for the relief against the Municipality, and it
is not clear why it was cited in these proceedings.
[27] In the result, the application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
_____________________________
N. MANGCU-LOCKWOOD
ACTING JUDGE OF THE ELECTORAL COURT
8 Annexure “LRP12”.
9 Annexure “MRM4”.
13
Appearances
For the first and second applicants: Moruwe Attorneys, Midrand
For the second respondent: Modise Attorneys Incorporated, Alberton