African National Congress v Ezulweni Investments (Pty) Ltd

Ezulweni Investments (Pty) Ltd claimed that it concluded an oral agreement on 20 February 2019 with the African National Congress (ANC), represented by its officials Mabaso (Finance Manager) and Nkholise (personal assistant to the Head of Elections), for the supply, placement and removal of 30 000 election banners at an agreed price exceeding R100 million. Ezulweni alleged that it performed fully by manufacturing, importing, placing and later removing the banners nationwide ahead of the May 2019 general elections, while the ANC failed to pay despite invoices, correspondence, and repeated follow-ups. The ANC denied that any agreement was concluded, contending that only the Treasurer-General could authorise such contracts and that no purchase order was issued. It further alleged that Mabaso and Nkholise lacked authority. Ezulweni approached the High Court for payment, which was granted. The ANC’s appeals to the full court and subsequently to the Supreme Court of Appeal were dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where employed. The application to admit further evidence on appeal was also dismissed with costs. The High Court order directing the ANC to pay Ezulweni the claimed amounts stood.

The case reinforces South African principles governing the resolution of factual disputes in motion proceedings, particularly the rejection of bald and implausible denials. It provides authoritative guidance on determining actual authority in the context of political organisations and election campaigns, and underscores that conduct and contemporaneous documents may establish authority and contractual consensus despite internal procurement rules. It also clarifies the strict requirements for admitting further evidence on appeal.