The Electoral Court has granted the MK Party leave to withdraw its application in which it sought to have the May national elections set aside, claiming there was vote rigging.
However, the court on Friday imposed a punitive costs order against the party, ordering it to pay the costs of the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) and chief electoral officer on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.
Shortly after the election, the MK Party had claimed there was evidence of vote rigging and “huge acts of fraud”. These claims were roundly disputed by the IEC, which said the MK Party had produced no evidence to back up its case.
After answering papers were filed by the commission and the matter set down for hearing, the MK Party sought to withdraw its application unilaterally and without first tendering costs.
The party later proposed terms that included a tender of cost. This was rejected by the commission and the chief electoral officer.
Instead, the IEC sought an order barring the MK Party from reinstituting similar proceedings on the same or substantially identical issues and relief without leave of the Electoral Court.
The commission also sought costs on an attorney and client scale, citing this application as another attempt by the MK Party to litigate similar allegations despite a prior dismissal by the Constitutional Court.
In its judgment on Friday, the court found that while the MK Party should be granted leave to withdraw its application, imposing conditions on future litigation would unjustifiably restrict its constitutional right of access to justice.
“On the papers before me, I am not persuaded that the withdrawal constitutes an abuse of process yet. Indeed the MK Party’s conduct throughout these proceedings has been marked by several irregularities,” Electoral Court acting judge Esther Steyn said.
Steyn said she was of a view that a punitive costs order was appropriate to dissuade litigants from instituting proceedings and then abruptly abandoning them when unsubstantiated.
TimesLIVE
Electoral Court allows MK Party to withdraw 'vote-rigging' case
Journalist
Image: Alaister Russell/The Sunday Times
The Electoral Court has granted the MK Party leave to withdraw its application in which it sought to have the May national elections set aside, claiming there was vote rigging.
However, the court on Friday imposed a punitive costs order against the party, ordering it to pay the costs of the Electoral Commission of South Africa (IEC) and chief electoral officer on an attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.
Shortly after the election, the MK Party had claimed there was evidence of vote rigging and “huge acts of fraud”. These claims were roundly disputed by the IEC, which said the MK Party had produced no evidence to back up its case.
After answering papers were filed by the commission and the matter set down for hearing, the MK Party sought to withdraw its application unilaterally and without first tendering costs.
The party later proposed terms that included a tender of cost. This was rejected by the commission and the chief electoral officer.
Instead, the IEC sought an order barring the MK Party from reinstituting similar proceedings on the same or substantially identical issues and relief without leave of the Electoral Court.
The commission also sought costs on an attorney and client scale, citing this application as another attempt by the MK Party to litigate similar allegations despite a prior dismissal by the Constitutional Court.
In its judgment on Friday, the court found that while the MK Party should be granted leave to withdraw its application, imposing conditions on future litigation would unjustifiably restrict its constitutional right of access to justice.
“On the papers before me, I am not persuaded that the withdrawal constitutes an abuse of process yet. Indeed the MK Party’s conduct throughout these proceedings has been marked by several irregularities,” Electoral Court acting judge Esther Steyn said.
Steyn said she was of a view that a punitive costs order was appropriate to dissuade litigants from instituting proceedings and then abruptly abandoning them when unsubstantiated.
TimesLIVE
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Latest Videos
Most Read
News
News
News
News
News