African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) v Electoral Commission

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Mthiyane JA, Pillay J and Masipa J, Ms S Moodley and Ms S Abro (members)
• Judgment Date: 15 February 2006
• Docket Number: 1/2006
• Court: Electoral Court
• Hearing Date: 15 February 2006
• Citation: 2011 JDR 0060 (EC)

Pillay J:

RELIEF CLAIMED

[1]

The Applicant, by way of review, seeks to set aside the First Respondent's decision not to place the Applicant's name on the list of registered parties entitled to contest the election in the City of Cape Town Category A Metro Local Election ("Cape Metro") which is to take place on the 1st of March 2006, and also a review of the further decision not to place the names of the Applicant's candidates for the various wards in the Cape Metro on the final list of candidates.

Consequent upon the setting aside of the decision by the First Respondent as aforesaid, the Applicant seeks a declarator:-

1)

That the Applicant paid a deposit in excess of the prescribed amount required to contest the election prior to 17h00 on the 19th of January 2006;

Alternatively;

2)

That the Applicant timeously complied with all the requirements to contest the election set out in sections 14 and 17 of the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act 27 of 2000;

3)

That the First Respondent is ordered to forthwith place Applicant's name on the list of registered parties entitled to contest the election;

2011 JDR 0060 p3

Pillay J

4)

That the First Respondent is ordered to forthwith place the names of the Applicant's candidates for the various wards in the election on the final list of candidates of the election as reflected on the forms MEC 21, MEC 24 and MEC 26, as submitted to the First Respondent by Applicant on or before 17h00 on the 19th of January 2006.

The Applicant claims ancillary relief ordering the First Respondent to forthwith print the necessary ballot paper reflecting the Applicant as contesting the Cape Metro, and costs of the application, if opposed.

The application is opposed by the First Respondent.

[2]

The Applicant seeks condonation for the late institution of the review proceedings. In so far as it may be necessary to adjudicate on this preliminary issue and certain procedural shortcomings relating to the Applicant's failure or neglect to file written submissions with the Commission's Secretary within the prescribed period or at all, the First Respondent nonetheless consents to the matter being adjudicated upon the papers filed by the Applicant and First Respondent with the object no doubt of a speedy resolution to the dispute on the merits rather than rely on technicalities. The First Respondent's attitude is to be welcomed in the interest of free and fair elections.

2011 JDR 0060 p4

Pillay J

BACKGROUND

[3]

National Government Local Elections are to take place on the 1st of March 2006. Certain provisions of sections 13, 14 and 17 of the Local Government: Municipal Electoral Act No 27 of 2000 (the Act), and certain decisions taken at the Party Liaison Committee (PLC) meetings and the election timetable are all of particular relevance to this application. Each is dealt with in turn

"S.13 PARTIES CONTESTING ELECTIONS"

1.

Only registered parties may contest an election, - - - - either by

(a)

submitting a party list - - - for the election of members to proportionally represent parties in the council.

(b)

nominating a ward candidate - - - -

or

(c)

doing both"

The relevant provisions of section 14 for present purposes may be paraphrased thus:

A party may contest an election by way of party lists by submitting to the First Respondent's local representative a notice of intention to contest the election, accompanied by a party list and the prescribed deposit by no later than the date stated in the election timetable.

The relevant provisions of section 17 for present purposes may be paraphrased as follows:

2011 JDR 0060 p5

Pillay J

A person may contest an election as a ward candidate only if that person is nominated on a prescribed form submitted to the First Respondent's local office by no later than a date stipulated in the election timetable accompanied inter alia by the prescribed deposit.

In relation to the election timetable and decisions by the PLC (National), the following is not in dispute:

(i)

That the cut off date in the election timetable for compliance with the provisions of section 14 and 17 is the 19th of January 2006 — the cut off time being 17h00.

(ii)

In order to facilitate the payment of deposits whereby political parties intended to contest the elections in a number of municipalities across the whole country, a central payment of deposits facility was put in place, by agreement, whereby political parties would make payment of the prescribed deposits by way of a bank guaranteed cheque to the First Respondent's national office in Pretoria.

THE ISSUE

[4]

The procedural issues under Rule 6 (1) having fallen by the wayside, the only issue before this Court is whether the Applicant has complied with the

2011 JDR 0060 p6

Pillay J

requirements of section 14 and 17 and more specifically whether the Applicant has paid the required deposit for the Cape Metro Elections by no later than the time and date in the election timetable, i.e. 17h00 on the 19th of January 2006.

COMMON CAUSE:

[5] (i)

It is common cause that in respect of the Applicant's intended contesting of the Cape Metro both by way of party lists and nomination of ward candidates, notice was given and nominations made. The necessary documentation was handed in at the First Respondent's Cape Town offices by GRANT CHRISTOPHER HASKIN on behalf of the Applicant at approximately 15h00 on the 19th of January 2006. No deposit was paid for the Cape Metro at the First Respondent's...