Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1] This is an urgent application in which the applicants seek the following relief:

“1. That the application be heard as one of urgency;

2. That the decision of the first respondent on 27 August 2018 designating the second respondent to preside over the election of a speaker in the council of the third respondent be reviewed and set aside;

3. That the actions and decisions of the second respondent in presiding as chairperson over the election of the speaker of the council be reviewed and set aside;

4. That the election of the fifth respondent as speaker of the council be reviewed and set aside;

5. That it be declared that the meeting of the third respondent’s council on 27 August 2018, as presided over by the second respondent, and subsequently by the fifth respondent was not a properly constituted meeting of the council and was unlawful and void;

6. That all the decisions taken by the meeting referred to above and in particular the resolutions:

6.1 that the second applicant be removed from office as the executive mayor;

6.2 that the sixth respondent be elected as executive mayor;

6.3 that the office of the deputy executive mayor be reinstated and that the seventh respondent be elected as deputy executive mayor;

6.4 that the incumbent chief whip be removed from office and that the ninth respondent be elected to that position;

be reviewed and set aside;  alternatively, be declared to be unlawful and void;

7. That the first respondent, jointly and severally with such of the remaining respondents as may oppose the application, pay the cost thereof.”

[2] The third and fourth respondents are abiding the decision of the court.

[3] The first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth respondents are opposing the matter.  The tenth to fourteenth respondents filed a joint notice of opposition.  They however did not file opposing papers and there was no appearance for them at the hearing of the matter.

[4] The first respondent (the MEC), the sixth respondent (Bobani) and the eighth respondent (Manyati) have all filed extensive answering affidavits.  Bobani’s answering affidavit was also deposed to on behalf of the fifth, sixth, seventh and ninth respondents.