United Democratic Movement v The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others

Parliament enacted four statutes in June 2002 that allowed members of the National Assembly, provincial legislatures and municipal councils to change political party affiliation without losing their seats (so‑called ‘floor‑crossing’ legislation). The United Democratic Movement (UDM), a minority political party represented in these bodies, challenged the constitutionality of the legislation. Before the Constitutional Court could decide the merits, the UDM urgently approached the Cape High Court, which issued interim orders suspending the commencement and operation of the Acts pending a constitutional challenge in the Constitutional Court. The President and Ministers appealed directly to the Constitutional Court, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to suspend duly enacted legislation, particularly constitutional amendments.

The appeal against the High Court and Full Court orders was upheld. The interim orders suspending the commencement and operation of the impugned legislation were set aside. Interim stabilising relief was granted by the Constitutional Court pending determination of the merits of the constitutional challenge.

The case is a leading authority on the limits of High Court jurisdiction in constitutional matters and clarifies that courts may not suspend the operation of Acts of Parliament unless expressly authorised by the Constitution. It reinforces the separation of powers and the exclusive role of the Constitutional Court in adjudicating challenges to constitutional amendments, shaping how urgent constitutional litigation is managed in South Africa.