Independent South African National Civic Organisation v Ramosie and Another

ISANCO (Independent South African National Civic Organisation) was established on 28 November 2020 with Dr Zukile Luyenge as President and contact person, and Mr Ramosie as Secretary-General. Leadership disputes resulted in two factions forming. Mr Ramosie obtained a High Court order on 27 July 2023 directing the Electoral Commission to update records reflecting him as leader and contact person. ISANCO (under Dr Luyenge) applied for rescission, obtaining a provisional order, but this was discharged by Molitsoane J on 5 February 2024. On 26 February 2024, the Commission replaced Dr Luyenge with Mr Ramosie as leader and contact person. ISANCO obtained an order from Rusi J on 7 March 2024 reviewing and setting aside the Commission's decision, but Mr Ramosie appealed on the same day. On 8 March 2024, the Commission rejected Dr Luyenge's list of candidates and accepted Mr Ramosie's list based on the pending appeal. ISANCO brought an urgent review application on 3 April 2024 to challenge the Commission's decision.

• Whether the review application was brought within the prescribed time limits under rule 6(1) of the Electoral Court Rules
• Whether a condonation application was required to explain the delay in bringing the review application
• Whether the application based on the principle of legality is subject to time limits
• Whether ISANCO was properly authorised to bring the application
• Whether the application was urgent
• Whether lis pendens applied due to similar pending proceedings

The application was dismissed. Each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

A review application brought in terms of section 20(1) of the Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 read with rule 6(1) of the Electoral Court Rules must be lodged within three days of the decision sought to be reviewed. Failure to comply with this time limit requires a condonation application on good cause shown. Even where a review is based on the principle of legality, the Constitution has not dispensed with the basic procedural requirement that review proceedings must be brought without undue delay. Where specific time periods are prescribed by statute or rules, those time limits apply and must be complied with or condonation sought. The fact that a review is based on legality does not exempt the applicant from complying with prescribed time limits or seeking condonation for late filing. Applications relating to electoral leadership disputes must be brought timeously to enable the Electoral Commission to prepare for elections and to allow voters to know who the party leader is.

The Court made observations about costs in the Electoral Court, noting that the general rule is that an unsuccessful party ought not to be ordered to pay costs, though this is not inflexible and can be departed from where there are strong reasons such as frivolous or vexatious litigation. The Court also noted that it did not need to decide the lis pendens defence raised by the Commission in light of ISANCO's undertaking to withdraw the similar proceedings in the Free State High Court. The Court observed that electoral matters are by their nature urgent and should be dealt with expeditiously. The Court also noted the ongoing leadership disputes in ISANCO and the administrative difficulties this created for the Electoral Commission in maintaining accurate records of political party particulars.

This case is significant for establishing that review applications brought in terms of section 20(1) of the Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 must comply with the time limits prescribed by rule 6(1) of the Electoral Court Rules (three days from the decision). The case clarifies that even where a review is based on the principle of legality, if specific time limits are prescribed by statute or rules, applicants must either comply with those time limits or bring a condonation application explaining and justifying the delay. The judgment emphasizes the importance of promptly bringing leadership dispute applications in the electoral context, both to enable the Electoral Commission to prepare for elections and to allow voters to know who the party leader is. The case also demonstrates the Court's approach to distinguishing self-review applications by state functionaries (where procedural obstacles should not easily prevent scrutiny of unlawful conduct) from reviews brought by third parties challenging administrative decisions.