THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Case No: 207/08

No precedential significance

MASEGO ROCHESTER MATLHOLWA
Appellant

and

ISAAC RAMMUSI MAHUMA

1ST Respondent

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE OF THE
UNITED CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY        2ND Respondent

UNITED CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY        3RD Respondent

Neutral citation: Matlholwa v Mahuma and others  (207/2008) [2009]

ZASCA 29(30 March 2009)

Coram:
Farlam, Nugent, Lewis, Van Heerden, Maya JJA

Heard:
19 March 2009
Delivered:
30 March 2009

Summary:
Voluntary association – expulsion of member from
political
party
–
whether
authorised
and
empowered by constitution.

___________________________________________________________
ORDER

On appeal from Mmabatho High Court (Mogoeng JP sitting as a court of
first instance).
The appeal succeeds with costs, such costs to be paid by the third

respondent.
The order made by the court a quo is set aside in its entirety and

replaced with the following order:
‘(a)
The decision by the second respondent to expel the applicant from

the third respondent, taken on 27 August 2007, is set aside.
(b)
The third respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.’

_____________________________________________________
JUDGMENT

VAN HEERDEN JA (Farlam, Nugent, Lewis, Maya JJA concurring)

[1] The question that arises in this appeal is whether the purported
expulsion of the appellant, Mr Masego Matlholwa, from the third

respondent, the United Christian Democratic Party (‘the Party’), was
lawful.

[2] The appellant had been a member of the Party since 1999. In May
2005, he was deployed by the Party as one of its representatives to the
North West Provincial Legislature in Mafikeng, whilst another member
of the Party, a Mr Tlhagale, was deployed by the Party to the National
Council of Provinces in Cape Town.

[3] Two years later, in about May 2007, Mr Tlhagale’s deteriorating
state of health led the Party to decide that the appellant and Mr Tlhagale
should switch seats. It was thus suggested that each should resign his seat
and thereafter take up the other’s position in the North West Provincial
Legislature and the National Council of Provinces, respectively. The
appellant initially agreed to do so, albeit reluctantly, as he first sought to
be reassured by the Party that the envisaged switch would not cause him
any prejudice, particularly in respect of his salary and other privileges.
However, despite repeated requests by the Party – after having furnished
him with the requisite assurance – to resign his seat, the appellant failed
to do so by the final deadline of 24 August 2007.

[4] On 27 August 2007, a committee that had been established by the
Party, which called itself the ‘Management Committee’ of the Party
(cited as the second respondent), held a special meeting at which it
purported to expel the appellant from the Party as also from the North
West Provincial Legislature with immediate effect, allegedly on the
grounds of his failure to comply with the instructions of the Party despite
having agreed to do so. The appellant was informed of this decision in a
letter of the same date, addressed to him by the first respondent, Mr
Mahuma, the Party’s Deputy Secretary Administration.

[5] In motion proceedings instituted in the Mafikeng High Court, the
appellant challenged his expulsion. He contended that the ‘Management
Committee’ that had purported to expel him was not a properly
constituted structure of the Party and therefore, to use the words of the
appellant, was ‘non-existent’; alternatively any such management
committee as may have purported to expel him did not have the power in
terms of the Party’s constitution to do so. Accordingly, so the contention
went, his expulsion was not lawful.

[6] The application, which by the time of the hearing was limited to an
order that his expulsion from the Party be ‘declared null and void ab
initio’ or alternatively set aside, was dismissed with costs by the court

below. Notwithstanding the absence of a counter-application (and despite
the fact that such orders were not sought), Mogoeng JP purported to
confirm the appellant’s expulsion from the Party, as well as his expulsion
from the North West Provincial Legislature. With the leave of this Court,
the appellant now appeals against the judgment of the learned Judge
President.

[7] Despite the stance adopted by the appellant in his founding and
replying affidavits – that the Management Committee (the second
respondent) which purported to expel him was ‘constitutionally non-
existent’ – it was common cause before us that the Management
Committee in question that purported to do so was in fact the Federal
Council Management Committee (the FCMC) referred to in clauses 9.2
and 10.1 of the constitution of the Party (see further below). The decisive
issue in this appeal is thus whether the FCMC was authorised and
empowered by the constitution to expel the appellant in the manner in
which it purported to do.

[8] As was correctly emphasised by the court below, a political party is
a voluntary association founded on the basis of mutual agreement. Like
any other voluntary association, the relationship between a political party
and its members is a contractual one, the terms of the contract being

contained in the constitution of the party.1 In construing the provisions of
the Party’s constitution for the purposes of this appeal, it is important to
bear in mind that expulsion is the most drastic form of punishment which
a voluntary association can impose on its members and the power to do
so must consequently appear expressly or by necessary implication from
the provisions of its constitution. In the words of Van Winsen J in
Conrad v Farrel & others:2
‘Our Courts, in common with the English Courts, have adopted the view that a
voluntary association’s right to expel a member must be stated expressly or by
necessary implication in the constitution and that, in the absence of such a statement,
there is no inherent right residing in the association to take action to expel a member.
. . . .
The Courts have repeatedly taken up the attitude that if the power to terminate
membership is not expressly given then the association can only enjoy that power if it
appears as a clear and unambiguous implication from the terms of its constitution,
read as a whole, that it was the intention to afford it such a power.’

Members may thus be expelled only by a structure of the voluntary
association entrusted with the power of expulsion expressly or by ‘clear
and unambiguous’ implication. A purported expulsion by a structure

1 See Yiba & others v African Gospel Church 1999 (2) SA 949 (C) at 960D-961B and the authorities
there cited.
2 1974 (2) SA 200 (C) at 202F-203E.

other than one in which this power is vested in terms of the constitution
will be ultra vires and unlawful.3

[9] According to the answering affidavits deposed to by the Deputy
National Leader of the Party, its Chairperson and the first respondent, the
FCMC consists of 23 persons elected by the Federal Council of the Party
(the Council) to manage the affairs of the Party on a day to day basis
when the Council is not sitting. The FCMC is the de facto executive arm
of the Council (which consists of about 200 members). It is authorised by
the Council to act on the latter’s behalf when it is not in session. Its
authority includes the power to discipline and ultimately, to expel a
member from the Party. With reference to the minutes of certain meetings
of the FCMC, annexed to the answering affidavits, the deponents point
out that nine elected members of the top leadership structure of the Party
(the National Leader, the Deputy National Leader, the Chairperson, two
Deputy Chairpersons, the National Secretary, two Deputy National
Secretaries and the National Treasurer, all of whom sit on the Council)
are also members of the FCMC. It is further alleged that the appellant
himself had been a member of this Committee since 1999.

3 See, eg, the Yiba case at 961D-G and further in this regard G J Pienaar ‘Associations’ in 1 Lawsa 2 ed
(2003) para 633 and the other authorities there cited.

[10] In coming to the conclusion that the appellant’s expulsion from the
Party was lawful, the court a quo reasoned as follows:
‘[27]. . . . On a preponderance of probabilities, the Party does have a
Management Committee which has, over the years, been dealing with issues such as
the possible sale of its farm worth about R1.5m, projects, Human Rights Day
celebrations, salaries of permanent staff members of the Party, traditional leadership,
deployment, the Party’s youth, religious affairs, etc. By any standards, these are the
issues expected to be discussed and addressed by a supreme structure which is
responsible for the running of all the important affairs of the Party, and that is what
the Management Committee is said to be.
[28] The only Management Committee mentioned in the constitution of the
Party is the Federal Council Management Committee.  The Federal Council generally
meets at intervals of 6 months. Obviously, a lot would ordinarily have to be done in a
month let alone 6 months, and the need for a structure that has to look after the day-
to-day affairs of the Party requires no motivation. That structure can only be the
Federal Council Management Committee.  I think this Committee was purposefully
named the Management Committee since its responsibility is to do a whole lot more
than just convene meetings of the Federal Council and of the Federal Congress and
determine the date and the place for the meeting.  It has to manage the Party. After all,
that is the duty of the Federal Council for which the Management Committee is filling
in. Common sense and logic dictates that the Federal Council Management
Committee is the same Management Committee, whose meetings the Applicant
attended in the past, and that it is also the same Management Committee which
expelled him from the Party.

[29] On the probabilities, the version of the Deputy National Leader, the
Chairperson and the Deputy Secretary Administration of the Party that the Applicant
was expelled from the Party by the Federal Council Management Committee is the
correct one and not that of the Applicant. The duties entrusted to the Management
Committee are so important that they cannot be left to an ad hoc committee to handle.
It would also be absurd to accept the Applicant’s contention that the entire top
leadership of the Party, whose names appear on the first page of the minutes of the
meetings of the Management Committee, is part of an ad hoc committee, which
according to the Applicant, is led by the Deputy Secretary Administration. I am
satisfied that the Party did establish the Federal Council Management Committee.  It
then clothed it with the powers of the Federal Council.’

[11] I am afraid that I cannot agree with this reasoning. It is true that
there is authority for the proposition that the constitution of a voluntary
association should, in appropriate circumstances, be interpreted ‘broadly
and benevolently and not in a carping, critical and narrow way’,4
adopting ‘a practical, commonsense approach to the matter’.5 However,
this ‘principle of benevolent construction’ does not apply to a situation
such as the one forming the subject of this appeal.6 As pointed out above,
the power to expel a member may be exercised only by a body in which
such power has been vested by the constitution expressly or by clear and

4 Garment Workers’ Union v De Vries & others  1949 (1) SA 1110 (W) at 1129.
5 Motaung v Mukubela & another NNO; Motaung v Mothiba NO 1975 (1) SA 618 (O) at 626H-627A.
6 Oosthuizen v Building Workers’ Industrial Union of South Africa & another 1950 (3) SA 834 (W) at
840C-G.

unambiguous implication, failing which the purported expulsion will be
ultra vires the constitution and void.

[12] It is thus to the provisions of the Party’s constitution that we must
look. Unfortunately, this document is by no means a model of clarity or
coherence. Clause 5, headed ‘Membership’, provides that membership of
the Party will cease, inter alia, ‘in the event of a member’s expulsion
from the Party by the Provincial Committee’ (clause 5.1.4.2) or in the
event of ‘the withdrawal by the Provincial Committee of the membership
of any individual’ (clause 5.1.4.3).7 Neither the grounds upon which a
Provincial Committee may expel a member from the Party or withdraw
membership, nor the procedure to be followed in that regard, are spelt out
in the constitution.

[13] The only other body upon which the power to expel a member
from the Party is expressly conferred is the Federal Council. In this
regard, clause 13 of the Constitution, headed ‘Disciplinary Procedures’,
provides:
‘13.1 The Federal Council may, in its discretion and for whatever reason and in the
interest of the Party;

7 Clause 8 provides for the election of a Provincial Executive Committee for each province, which
committee must ‘act as liaison between the Federal Council, and the Regional and the Branches’
(clause 8.4.1.2).

13.1.1 ban any member of the Party upon which his/her membership is
automatically terminated;
. . . .
13.2
The Federal Council can give written notice to any person or body of its
proposed consideration to ban, dissolve or suspend such person or body, hear
any person or body or receive any proof with regard thereto, and give reasons
for its decision, which decision will be final and binding.
13.3
Every member of the Party, who is also a member of either the National
Assembly or a Provincial Legislature must respect each decision by the
Federal Council, the Federal Congress and the Parliamentary Caucus must
execute such decisions.  The National Leader or the Deputy National Leader
in the event of clause 11.2 or 11.3 being applicable, can after consultation with
the Federal Council give written notice to a member who has deviated from
such decisions, to the effect that his membership of the caucus of the Party is
terminated; and
13.4
Every member of the Party who deviates from a decision of the Federal
Congress, the Special Congress, the Federal Council or the Parliamentary
Caucus makes himself/herself liable for expulsion from the Party by the
Federal Council. ’ (Emphasis added.)
In terms of clause 13.3, therefore, the National Leader or the Deputy
National Leader may under certain circumstances terminate a member’s
membership of the parliamentary caucus of the Party.

[14] Clauses 9 and 10 of the constitution deal with the composition and
powers of the Federal Council and the Federal Congress, the top
governing structures of the Party. To the extent here relevant these
clauses read:
‘9
FEDERAL COUNCIL
9.1
The Federal Council meets and attends to urgent matters which otherwise
would have been attended to by the Federal Congress and consists of . . .
9.2
The Federal Council will meet as often as may be necessary, practical or as
urgency demands, but notwithstanding in intervals of not less than six months
during the two year intervals of the sessions of the Federal Congress, on a date
and place as is determined by the Federal Council Management Committee;
and
9.3
Notwithstanding any proviso to the contrary, the Federal Council shall when
in session:
9.3.1 be the highest governing body of the Party; and
9.3.2 will perform and exercise all such powers, functions and duties as [are]
given to the Federal Council in terms of this Constitution;
. . . .
9.4
The Federal Council shall formulate the procedure for the nomination of
National and or Provincial Parliamentary Candidate to represent the Party
during elections.
9.5
Provincial leadership shall be constituted by the Federal Council.’

‘10
FEDERAL CONGRESS
10.1
The Federal Congress is the highest governing body of the Party and shall
meet in [sic] biannually upon a date and place as determined by the Federal
Council Management Committee:
10.1.1 provided that the National leader or the Deputy National Leader in the
event of clause 11.2 and 11.3 being applicable in consultation with the Federal
Council Management Committee may convene a special sitting of the Federal
Congress or instead thereof the Federal Council when he deems fit; and
10.1.2 the Federal Council Management Committee convenes a special sitting
of the Federal Congress, if so requested, by 50% plus one member of each
Provincial Committee,
10.2
. . .
10.3
The Federal Congress shall:
. . . .
10.3.3 have the authority to take decisions except decisions regarding the
amendment of the Constitution; concerning all aspects of Party policy,
organisation, finances and discipline by majority vote, which decisions will be
binding on the Party, its bodies and members.
10.3.5 Ratify the decisions and or actions of the Federal Council.’
(Emphasis added)

[15]  In terms of clauses 9.2 and 10.1 – the only clauses in the entire
constitution in which the FCMC is mentioned – the powers conferred on
the FCMC are limited. They go no further than determining the date and

place of meetings of the Federal Council and the Federal Congress and, in
specified circumstances, in convening special sittings of these two bodies.
There is nothing in the constitution of the Party that confers any
disciplinary powers on the FCMC, much less the power of expulsion. The
constitution also does not provide for any delegation of powers to the
FCMC. Even if one were to assume in favour of the Party, without
deciding, that the Federal Council could indeed delegate its power of
expulsion to the FCMC (as was contended by counsel for the
respondents), there is nothing on the papers before us to show that any
such delegation ever took place.

[16] It follows that, in my view, it has not been shown that the FCMC
was either authorised or empowered by the constitution of the Party to
expel the appellant and that its decision of 27 August 2007 in this regard
cannot stand.

[17] As regards the orders of the court a quo confirming the appellant’s
expulsion from the Party and from the North West Provincial Legislature,
as I have already stated no such orders were sought. The learned Judge
President misdirected himself in making those orders and they should in
any event be set aside.

[18] It follows that the appeal must succeed with costs. For some
reason, two counsel were involved in drafting the appellant’s heads of
argument in the appeal. It was submitted on the appellant’s behalf that the
complexity of the matter was such that this extra cost could be justified. I
do not accept this contention. It was also common cause that the Party
was in truth the only respondent properly before both the court a quo and
this court and that any costs order should be made against the Party alone.

[19] In the result, the following order is made:
The appeal succeeds with costs, such costs to be paid by the third

respondent.
The order made by the court a quo is set aside in its entirety and

replaced with the following order:
‘(a)
The decision by the second respondent to expel the applicant from

the third respondent, taken on 27 August 2007, is set aside.
(b)
The third respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.’

__________________

B J VAN HEERDEN

Appearances:

For the Appellant:
MG Khoza SC

Instructed by:

S E Monare & Partners

Mafikeng

Mmabatho

Claude Reid Inc

Bloemfontein

For the Respondent:
J Grobler (Attorney)

Instructed by

Smit Stanton Inc

Mafikeng

Ben van der Merwe Attorneys

Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

Date:
31 March 2009

Status:
Immediate

Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the
media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court
of Appeal.

MASEGO MATLHOLWA v ISAAC MAHUMA and two others

The Supreme Court of Appeal (the SCA) today held that the purported expulsion of
Masego Rochester Matlholwa by the United Christian Democratic Party in August 2007,
by a committee that had been established by the Party (and which called itself the
‘Management Committee’ of the Party), was lawful. In so doing, the SCA upheld the
appeal of Mr Matlholwa against the judgment of the Mafikeng High Court.

Mr Matlhlowa had been a member of the Party since 1999. In May 2005, he was
deployed by the Party as one of its representatives to the North West Provincial
Legislature in Mafikeng, whilst another member of the party, a Mr Tlhagale, was
deployed to the National Council of Provinces in Cape Town.

Two years later, in about May 2007, Mr Tlhagale’s deteriorating health led the Party to
decide that Mr Matlholwa and Mr Tlhagale should switch seats, by each resigning his
seat and thereafter taking up the other’s position in the North West Provincial Legislature
and the National Council of Provinces, respectively. Although Mr Matlholwa initially
agreed to do, he failed to resign by the final deadline of 24 August 2007. On 27 August
2007, the second respondent (the so-called ‘Management Committee’) held a special
meeting at which it purported to expel Mr Matlholwa from the Party with immediate effect

on the grounds that he had failed to comply with the Party’s instructions despite having
agreed to do so.

Mr Matlhowa challenged his expulsion in the Mafikeng High Court, but his application
was dismissed with costs. On appeal before the SCA, it was common cause that the
Management Committee which had purported to expel him was in fact the Federal
Council Management Committee of the Party (the FCMC) referred to in several clauses
of the Party’s constitution. The decisive issue was thus whether the FCMC was
empowered by the constitution to expel him in the manner in which it purported to do.

The SCA pointed out that a political party is a voluntary association founded on the basis
of mutual agreement. The relationship between a political party and its members is a
contractual one, the terms of the contract being contained in the party’s constitution.
Expulsion is the most drastic form of punishment which a voluntary association can
impose on its members and the power to do so must consequently appear expressly or
by necessary implication from the provisions of its constitution. A purported expulsion by
a structure of the voluntary association which is not entrusted by the constitution with the
power of expulsion expressly or by clear and unambiguous implication will be ultra vires
and unlawful.

The only structures of the Party upon which the power to expel a member is expressly
conferred by the constitution are the Provincial Committee and the Federal Council. The
powers conferred on the FCMC in terms of the constitution are limited and go no further
than determining the date and place of meetings of the Federal Council and the Federal
Congress (the top governing structures of the Party) and, in specified circumstances, in
convening special sittings of these two bodies. There is nothing in the constitution that
confers any disciplinary powers on the FCMC, much less the power of expulsion. The
constitution also does not provide for any delegation of powers to the FCMC.

In view of the above, the SCA held that it had not been shown that the FCMC was either
authorised or empowered by the constitution of the Party to expel Mr Matlholwa and that
its decision of 27 August 2007 in this regard had to be set aside. It therefore upheld the
appeal with costs.

end