Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Chairperson of the Powers and Privileges Committee N.O and Others

The second to seventh applicants are members of the first applicant (Economic Freedom Fighters), representing it as elected representatives in the National Assembly. During the 2023 State of the Nation Address (SONA), certain events led to the second to seventh applicants being referred to the Powers and Privileges Committee. The committee found them guilty of contempt of Parliament and recommended sanctions, including an order to apologise and a 30-day suspension without remuneration from 1 to 29 February 2024, confirmed by the National Assembly on 5 December 2023. On 20 December 2023, the applicants launched an urgent application in the High Court seeking to declare the parliamentary rules and the committee's decision unconstitutional, and alternatively, an interim interdict suspending the sanctions. The parties agreed to a court order on 17 January 2024, setting timelines for filing pleadings and hearing the matter on 29 January 2024. The applicants failed to comply with the agreed timelines: the replying affidavit was filed on 25 January 2024 (instead of 19 January 2024), heads of argument were filed shortly before midnight on Friday 26 January 2024 (instead of 22 January 2024), leaving no time for respondents to file their heads and for the court to prepare. The applicants brought a condonation application for the late filing of the replying affidavit, which the respondents did not oppose, but the respondents argued the matter should be struck from the roll due to the applicants' conduct.

• Whether the applicants' non-compliance with the court order of 17 January 2024 regarding filing deadlines should be condoned.
• Whether the application should be struck from the roll due to the applicants' failure to ensure the matter was ripe for hearing.
• The proper approach to condonation applications for non-compliance with court orders and the balancing of prejudice to all parties and the court.

1. The application for condonation for the late filing of the applicants' replying affidavit is granted. 2. Save as aforesaid, the application is struck from the roll. 3. The applicants shall pay the first, second, third and sixth respondents' costs of the application, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, such costs to include the cost of two counsel where so employed.

Where an applicant, as dominus litis, secures an opposed court date and agreed timelines, the applicant has an obligation to ensure the matter remains ripe for hearing. Where the applicant itself takes steps (or fails to take steps) that render the matter no longer ready for hearing, it cannot complain that its opposed application is struck from the roll. Non-compliance with a court order, without proper explanation, should not be condoned, as allowing litigants to ignore court orders undermines effective judicial administration and brings the administration of justice into disrepute. The court must ensure the integrity and efficient use of judicial resources and protect equal access for all litigants.

The court noted the importance of the matter and that the applicants might not get the relief they wished before the next SONA or Budget Speech, but stated this was of their own making. The court highlighted that it was 'willing and ready to not only accommodate the parties but to go the extra mile in sacrificing the weekend to read in excess of a thousand pages' and observed the irony that 'the applicants lamented the fact that they had eight days to prepare on less papers for the hearing before the committee', while their own delay deprived the court and respondents of adequate preparation time.

This judgment reinforces the principle that litigants, particularly in urgent applications, must ensure their matters are ripe for hearing on the allocated date and that court orders setting agreed timelines must be respected. It affirms that the dominant role of the applicant (dominus litis) carries a corresponding duty to facilitate the efficient conduct of proceedings. The case also highlights the balance between the right of access to courts and the duty to comply with court processes, and that matters of national importance do not excuse non-compliance with procedural obligations. The dissenting judgment illustrates a contrasting judicial approach emphasising prospects of success and the public interest in the substantive issues.