Read more
Fired MK party MPs suffer blow in court as interdict dismissed with costs
The judge said the axed MK party members failed to include "important factual issues" in their founding papers.
Supporters of the uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) party at Orlando Stadium in Soweto on 18 May 2024. Picture: Phill Magakoe / AFP
The uMkhonto weSizwe (MK) Party MPs have suffered a blow after their interdict application was dismissed.
On Monday, the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town delivered its ruling, dismissing the urgent application with costs.
The 10 former MPs sought an interim interdict to halt the swearing-in of their replacements while their review application, challenging their expulsion from the MK party and subsequent removal from the National Assembly, is still pending.
They were part of a larger group of 18 MK party members expelled by the party last month.
The applicants – Thamsanqa Khuzwayo, Isaac Menyatso, Citron Motshegoe, Augustina Qwetha, Nomado Mgwebi, Ntombenhle Mkhize, Sydwell Masilela, France Mfiki, Senzo Dlamini, and Agnes Mogotsi – accused the MK party dismissing them without following due processes.
So far, only eight members have been replaced by the party led by former president Jacob Zuma.
Former MK party MPs interdict dismissed
In the judgment, Judge Kathrine Savage stated that the former MPs failed to prove the urgency of their application.
The applicants argued they were facing eviction from the parliamentary villages, where they reside with their families.
They were given a 30-day notice to vacate the parliamentary residences on 19 August.
“The fact that the applicants were denied access to parliamentary accommodation on 19 August 2024, were short-paid on 15 August 2024, could not travel to Cape Town or find resources for the urgent application similarly do not justify a finding that the matter is urgent,” the judgment reads.
ALSO READ: Axed MK party MPs fail to reach settlement agreement as Zuma’s ‘contradiction’ in the spotlight
Savage highlighted that the applicants did not include “important factual issues” in their founding papers.
“What is not stated by Mr Kuzwayo is that he and the applicants are or were at any time members of the MK party.
“No details are provided regarding when the applicants were sworn in as members of parliament or when they were removed as such,” the judge said.
No replying affidavit
The axed MK party members also failed to file a replying affidavit.
“Furthermore, no replying affidavit was filed, which left all of the factual issues detailed in Mr Zuma’s answering affidavit unchallenged by the applicants.”
The former MPs also filed confirmatory affidavits “without the leave of the court sought to introduce these affidavits at such late stage” on the day the case was heard on 3 September.
READ MORE: Expelled MK party members told to move out of parliamentary houses, maintain they still ‘love’ Zuma
The judge found the applicants failed to show they held a prima facie right to an interim interdict, pending the review application.
“In claiming this, without pleading any factual basis to support this claim, the applicants fail to show the existence of a prima facie right to the relief sought.”
Court on Zuma
The MK party president had argued that the former MPs’ expulsions were lawful and valid.
While Savage commented on the way Zuma runs his party, the judge dismissed the applicants’ interdict application with costs.
“Despite the concerning picture painted by Mr Zuma regarding the manner in which the MK party currently operates and makes decisions involving its members, it remains for the applicants to show that the prerequisites for the interim relief sought by them have been met.
“An interim interdict is not to be granted by a court simply on the asking.
“Even if regard is had to the version of events advanced by Mr Zuma, the applicants have failed to show the existence of a prima facie right worthy of protection.
READ MORE: ‘Zuma show is a cult’ – Experts say MK party is ‘spaza shop’ with dictator firing members
“Given the paucity of relevant material averments set out in their papers, they have not established a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, nor that no alternative remedy is available to them or that the balance of convenience is in their favour.
“In such circumstances, with the requirements for the grant of an interim interdict not met, the application cannot be granted and it consequently falls to be dismissed,” Savage said.
She further rejected the MK party’s argument that the high court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.
“Turning to the issue of costs, there is no reason why the ordinary rule relating to the award of costs should not apply and counsel for both parties accepted as much. Costs must therefore follow the result,” the judge added.
The MK party has since released a statement, welcoming the outcome.
For more news your way
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
