Independent South African National Civic Association and Bakoena Stephen Ramosie v Zukile Luyenge and the Electoral Commission of South Africa

ISANCO was registered with the Electoral Commission on 26 January 2021, with Dr Luyenge registered as party leader and Mr Ramosie as contact person. On 29 November 2021, a leadership dispute arose between them. On 27 July 2023, Mr Ramosie obtained an order from the Free State Division (per Reinders J) directing the Commission to update its records by removing Dr Luyenge and replacing him with Mr Ramosie as leader and contact person. Dr Luyenge's application to rescind this order was dismissed by Molitsoane J on 5 February 2024. On 26 February 2024, the Commission updated its records pursuant to Reinders J's order. On 7 March 2024, Dr Luyenge successfully obtained an order from the Eastern Cape Division (per Rusi J) reviewing and setting aside the Commission's decision and directing reinstatement of Dr Luyenge. This created two conflicting High Court orders. Mr Ramosie then brought the current application in the Electoral Court under s 20(2A) of the Electoral Commissions Act 51 of 1996 seeking a declaration that he is the legitimate leader of ISANCO.

• Whether the Electoral Court can raise the issue of res judicata mero motu
• Whether the requirements of the doctrine of res judicata are met in circumstances where the same leadership dispute between the same parties has been determined by two separate divisions of the High Court
• Whether the court should grant leave to file a supplementary opposing affidavit
• Whether the Electoral Court should relax the application of res judicata in the interest of justice

1. The first respondent's application for leave to file a supplementary affidavit is refused with no order as to costs. 2. The application and counter-application are dismissed with no order as to costs. 3. Each party is ordered to bear its own costs.

A court may raise the issue of res judicata mero motu. The requirements for res judicata are: (1) the same parties; (2) the same cause of action; and (3) the same relief. Where a leadership dispute has been determined by competent High Courts, those judgments remain binding until set aside by a competent court, and the Electoral Court will not entertain relitigation of the same dispute as this would constitute forum shopping and undermine legal certainty. The doctrine of res judicata is based on the irrebuttable presumption that a final judgment on a claim submitted to a competent court is correct. While res judicata may be relaxed in exceptional circumstances where the interests of justice so require, a party seeking such flexibility must provide substantive reasons justifying departure from the general rule.

The Court observed that approaching another court when the validity of an existing court order is not impugned and there is no intention of impugning it leads to an ineluctable conclusion that the litigant is engaged in forum shopping, which conduct is unacceptable and adversely affects legal certainty. Regarding costs in electoral matters, the Court noted that cost orders are generally not imposed upon a losing party in electoral matters unless such party's conduct has been vexatious, frivolous, or abusive of court processes. The Court also noted that Rule 6(5)(e) of the Uniform Rules of Court gives a court discretion to allow the filing of a further affidavit, and such discretion is to be exercised judicially by considering all relevant factors including satisfactory explanation for delay, prejudice to parties, materiality of evidence, and costs.

This case demonstrates the Electoral Court's application of the res judicata doctrine to prevent endless relitigation of leadership disputes within political parties. It confirms that the Electoral Court will not exercise its jurisdiction under s 20(2A) of the Electoral Commissions Act where the same dispute has already been determined by competent courts, even where conflicting High Court orders exist. The case emphasizes the importance of legal certainty and the prohibition against forum shopping. It also clarifies that while res judicata can be raised by a court mero motu, parties seeking a flexible approach to the doctrine must provide substantive reasons for departure from the general rule. The judgment reinforces that extant High Court judgments must be respected and challenged through proper appeal mechanisms rather than through relitigation in different forums.