Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another

The appellants, members of the African National Congress (ANC), challenged the lawfulness of the ANC's Free State Provincial Conference (PC) held on 18-19 May 2018. Two prior court orders had declared earlier conferences and Branch General Meetings (BGMs) held in November and December 2017 unlawful and void (the Van Zyl order of 29 November 2017 and the Molemela order of 15 December 2017). These orders required that BGMs be held lawfully in accordance with the ANC Constitution before any PC could proceed. Prior to the May 2018 PC, appellants sent a petition on 14 May 2018 and a letter on 16 May 2018 highlighting irregularities and requesting that the PC not proceed. The respondents proceeded with the conference regardless. The appellants contended that the May 2018 PC was held in violation of the Van Zyl order because: (1) no proper audit of branches and membership was conducted within the required nine-month period; (2) numerous BGMs were not held lawfully or at all; (3) many BGMs were not quorate as persons not in good standing participated; (4) inadequate notice was given for some BGMs; and (5) other procedural irregularities occurred. The High Court (Jordaan J) dismissed the application, applying the Plascon-Evans rule and finding that the appellants' allegations were unfounded and that the respondents had gone to great lengths to comply with court orders.

• Whether the Free State Provincial Conference held on 18-19 May 2018 was conducted in violation of the court order of 29 November 2017
• Whether the ANC complied with its constitutional requirement to conduct a membership audit within nine months before the Provincial Conference
• Whether Branch General Meetings were held lawfully prior to the Provincial Conference
• Whether appellants were entitled to challenge BGMs not specifically dealt with in the Molemela order
• Whether the High Court correctly applied the Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings
• Whether appellants established material irregularities in light of respondents' rebuttals
• Whether internal party dispute resolution mechanisms must be exhausted before approaching courts
• Whether leave to appeal should be granted

1. Leave to appeal granted with costs in this Court and the Court below to be costs in the appeal. 2. The appeal is upheld with costs including costs of two counsel. 3. The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced with a declaration that the Provincial Conference held on 18-19 May 2018 was held in violation of the court order of 29 November 2017 and that the said Provincial Conference, its decisions/resolutions and/or outcome are unlawful and unconstitutional. 4. The declaration of invalidity is effective only from the date of delivery of this judgment (31 March 2021).

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Political parties must comply with their own constitutions and guidelines, which form part of the contractual relationship between party and members and have binding force. (2) Mandatory audit requirements in party constitutions must be strictly complied with before conferences can be held lawfully. Where party rules require an audit within a specified timeframe (here nine months), failure to conduct such audit renders subsequent conferences unlawful. (3) Branch General Meetings that are not quorate due to participation of non-members or persons not in good standing are unlawful, and delegates elected at such meetings cannot validly participate in higher-level conferences. (4) Court orders declaring conferences and meetings null and void require the entire process to be conducted de novo with full compliance with party constitutional requirements, not merely rectification of specifically identified defects. (5) Applicants in subsequent proceedings are not precluded from challenging unlawful processes merely because earlier applicants did not challenge those specific processes in prior proceedings. (6) Section 19 of the Constitution gives every member of a political party the right to exact compliance with the party constitution from party leadership, and this constitutional right supports access to courts without necessarily exhausting all internal remedies, particularly where internal complaints have been ignored.

The Court made several non-binding observations: (1) It noted that the failure to annex confirmatory affidavits to founding papers, where clearly done inadvertently and where the affidavits were later filed with the replying affidavit and the respondents comprehensively dealt with the issues and suffered no prejudice, should not be fatal to an application. (2) The Court commented on the test for granting leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act, noting that while "reasonable prospects of success" is the primary consideration, compelling reasons (including important questions of law or public importance) may justify granting leave, though "the merits remain vitally important and are often decisive." (3) The Court observed that the respondents had "an opportunity to be alert and scrupulous in ensuring compliance with the law" after two adverse court orders, suggesting criticism of the respondents' approach. (4) The Court noted that members of the ANC are citizens constitutionally entitled to approach courts, emphasizing that this right exists regardless of internal party mechanisms. (5) The Court commented on the "inordinate delay in prosecuting this matter" and that the PEC had been running affairs and taking decisions for a considerable period, which influenced the decision to suspend the declaration of invalidity to avoid chaos. (6) The Court observed that section 19 of the Constitution does not prescribe how members should participate in party activities, leaving this to parties to regulate through their own constitutions.

This case is significant for several reasons: (1) It reinforces that political parties must comply with their own constitutions and that failure to do so raises constitutional concerns under section 19 of the Constitution (right to participate in political party activities). (2) It confirms the principle from Ramakatsa 1 that members have a constitutional right to exact compliance with a political party's constitution from its leadership. (3) It establishes that party guidelines and rules form part of the contractual relationship between party and member and have binding force. (4) It demonstrates that courts will scrutinize whether internal party processes comply with party constitutions, particularly regarding audits, membership verification, and proper convening of meetings. (5) It clarifies that members are not necessarily required to exhaust internal party dispute resolution mechanisms before approaching courts, particularly where they have been ignored or where constitutional rights are at stake. (6) It illustrates the practical application of the Plascon-Evans rule in motion proceedings involving political party disputes. (7) It shows judicial willingness to suspend declarations of invalidity to avoid chaos where considerable time has elapsed and decisions have been taken in reliance on disputed processes. The case is part of ongoing litigation concerning ANC governance in the Free State and demonstrates judicial oversight of internal party democracy.