African National Congress v Independent Electoral Commission

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Mthiyane JA, Pillay J, Masipa J, Ms S Moodley and Ms S Abro (members)
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2006
• Docket Number: 5/2006
• Court: Electoral Court
• Hearing Date: 28 February 2006
• Citation: 2011 JDR 0057 (EC)

Mthiyane JA:

[1]

On 25 January 2006 the Commission took a decision to reject the nomination of certain persons as the applicant's ward and proportioned list candidates for election to the Naledi local municipality and the Bophirima District Council to contest the election on 1 March 2006. In a letter addressed to the applicant's provincial secretary the Chief Electoral Officer, Adv Pansy Tlakula wrote:

'On scrutiny it was found that nomination of candidates for Ward 6 and Ward 8 did not comply with the legislation as the form did not reflect her as the duly authorised official nor was the nomination form signed by Ms Modise. The nomination of the ANC candidates in Ward 6 and Ward 8 are therefore not in compliance with the legislation and are thus disqualified.

In regard to the ANC PR list for the Bophirima District Council the authorised officer, Mr Gwabeni admits that on submission of candidates on the 18th of January 2006, there were outstanding documents for candidate no. 8 (Hottie), no. 16 (Samane), no. 17 (Matobo) and no. 19 (Rashid). No outstanding documents were received from the party for candidates no. 8, no. 16 and no. 18 by the cut off date and time of 17:00 on the 24th of January 2006. In respect of candidate no. 17 the outstanding document was submitted after 17:00 on the 24th of January 2006, a fact as confirmed by Mr Gwabeni who submitted the documents. In this regard the 4 candidates referred to above are deleted from the district council PR list of the ANC.'

The decision taken by the Chief Electoral Officer, confirmed by the Electoral Commission, is the subject of this review application.

[2]

In terms of Rule 6 (1) of the rules of this court the applicant was required to lodge with the Secretary of this court, comprehensive written submissions within 3 (three) days (ie by no later than 28 January 2006) if it wished to take the decision of the Commission on review. The rule reads:

2011 JDR 0057 p3

Mthiyane JA

'Review Proceedings

6 (1) A Party who is entitled to and wants to take a decision of the Commission on review must lodge comprehensive written submissions with the Secretary (Registrar) within three days after a decision has been made.'

[3]

It is common cause that the applicant failed to comply with the rule. Its comprehensive written submissions were filed with the Registrar of this court on 21 February 2006 – some 24 days later. The respondent filed its submissions within three days from that date as...