Kuzwayo and Others v Umkhonto Wesizwe Political Party and Another

The ten applicants were members of the National Assembly who had been removed from the MK party's parliamentary list. The first respondent, the Umkhonto Wesizwe Political Party (MK party), had terminated their membership following internal disputes. Mr Jacob Zuma, as party president, oversaw a 'cleansing' of the party lists, alleging that many individuals were improperly included. The applicants challenged their removal via a review application (case 18079/2024) and sought urgent interim relief to prevent the MK party from replacing them in the National Assembly and to preserve their parliamentary benefits pending the review. The applicants claimed they were denied parliamentary accommodation, received reduced pay (R12,000 instead of R102,000), and were stripped of parliamentary privileges. The MK party opposed, contending the expulsions were lawful and that the applicants were no longer party members.

• Whether the application was sufficiently urgent to justify deviation from the Uniform Rules of Court
• Whether the applicants established a prima facie right to interim relief pending their review application
• Whether the applicants demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm if the interdict was not granted
• Whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the interim interdict
• Whether the applicants had any alternative remedy
• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to determine the matter

The application was dismissed with costs.

For an interim interdict to be granted, an applicant must establish all four requirements of the Setlogelo test: a prima facie right even if open to some doubt, a reasonable apprehension of irreparable and imminent harm, that the balance of convenience favours the grant of the interdict, and that no other remedy is available. A failure to plead material facts and a failure to file a replying affidavit to challenge the respondent's version means these requirements cannot be established. The prima facie right must be a right threatened by impending or imminent irreparable harm, not merely a right to approach a court for review. In motion proceedings, where disputes of fact arise and the applicant does not file a replying affidavit, the respondent's version stands unchallenged and must be accepted unless it is palpably implausible or untenable.

The court expressed concern regarding the manner in which the MK party operates, describing Mr Zuma's version as painting 'a worrying picture as to the manner in which the MK party currently operates, manages its operations, its membership and the apparent impunity with which it appears to take decisions outside of the control of its own constitution'. The court also noted that the approach of incorporating facts by reference to an annexure from another application was 'an unacceptable approach to pleading which cannot be sanctioned by this Court'.

This judgment reaffirms the strict application of the Setlogelo requirements for interim interdicts in the context of political party membership disputes and parliamentary representation. It underscores that urgency cannot be self-created, that applicants must plead all material facts fully in their founding papers rather than incorporating them by cross-reference, and that failure to file a replying affidavit leaves the respondent's version unchallenged under the Plascon-Evans rule. The case is also notable for its obiter criticism of the MK party's internal governance practices.