The Good Party v Electoral Commission of South Africa and Others

Three ward councillor seats became vacant in the George Local Municipality (Wards 16, 20 and 27), requiring by-elections. The Electoral Commission published an election timetable setting 22 June 2023 as the deadline for objections to the voters' roll. On 13 July 2023, five days before the by-elections scheduled for 18-19 July 2023, the applicant (The Good Party) wrote to the Provincial Electoral Officer alleging an unusual increase in voter registrations and requesting an investigation. On 14 July 2023, the applicant obtained affidavits from DA election agents alleging they were instructed to canvass residents from Thembalethu to register in Ward 20 where they were not ordinarily resident. On 15 July 2023, the applicant lodged a formal objection alleging electoral fraud and requested postponement of the by-elections. The Electoral Commission rejected the objection on 17 July 2023, stating it could only be made at a voting station and lacked substance. On 17 July 2023, the applicant filed an urgent application seeking postponement of the by-elections and an investigation into alleged fraud.

• Whether the application was properly brought as an urgent matter
• Whether the applicant complied with the timelines set in the election timetable
• Whether sufficient grounds existed to review the Electoral Commission's decision to dismiss the objection
• Whether the by-elections should be postponed to investigate allegations of electoral fraud
• Whether the urgency was self-created by the applicant's delay

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs. The order was granted on 19 July 2023, with reasons provided on 20 September 2023.

Timelines stipulated in election timetables published by the Electoral Commission must be strictly adhered to as they perform an important function in the electoral process by minimizing risks of disruption and assisting the Electoral Commission to deliver free and fair elections. A party seeking to review a decision of the Electoral Commission must comply with Rule 6 of the Electoral Court Rules by bringing the application within three days of the decision and properly setting out the grounds for review. Urgency that is self-created through an applicant's failure to utilize designated procedures and timelines (such as the pre-inspection and objection period for voters' rolls) will not justify urgent relief. An applicant seeking the extraordinary remedy of postponing elections on short notice must establish substantial grounds and adequately explain any delay in bringing the application.

The court endorsed the principle from MEC for Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, KwaZulu-Natal v Nkandla Local Municipality that courts should not decide matters that are abstract or academic and which do not have any practical effect. The court noted that the fact that an applicant wants to have a matter heard urgently does not automatically render the matter urgent. The court observed that section 20(1)(a) of the Electoral Commission Act 51 of 1996 empowers the court to review any decision of the Electoral Commission relating to an electoral matter, but such reviews must be done urgently. The court noted that the Electoral Commission had undertaken extensive preparation, logistics and expenses in preparation for the by-elections, and granting the postponement would undermine steps taken to ensure fairness of the elections.

This case reinforces the importance of strict adherence to electoral timelines and procedures in South African electoral law. It establishes that parties must utilize the pre-inspection and objection periods provided in election timetables and cannot wait until the eve of elections to raise concerns about the voters' roll. The judgment emphasizes that urgency in electoral matters must be genuine and not self-created through a party's own delay. It demonstrates the Electoral Court's approach to balancing allegations of electoral irregularities against the practical realities of conducting elections and the disruption caused by late challenges. The case also clarifies the requirements for review applications under Rule 6 of the Electoral Court Rules, particularly the need to properly articulate grounds for review.