Two expelled MK Party MPs fear the party could pull a sucker punch by replacing them in Parliament while challenging a court judgment in their favour.
Pumlani Kubukeli and Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala are fighting to enforce their victory, concerned that the party could fill their seats before the court hears the next round of their dispute.
Their lawyers have demanded assurances against replacement and resisted requests to move the hearing, warning that their clients remain exposed while the legal battle continues.
“Our clients are being severely prejudiced,” attorney Khanyisa Lingani wrote.
Cape Town High Court judge Daniel Thulare met both legal teams on Friday and set a date of November 20 to hear two applications.
Leave to appeal sought
The MK Party and its president, Jacob Zuma, want leave to appeal against the earlier judgment. The MPs want permission to implement it despite the pending appeal proceedings.
Their attorneys say the party has provided no assurances that it will leave the seats untouched.
In correspondence to the court registrar on October 29, MKP attorney Frans Dubula requested that the hearing move from November 6 to November 13.
Dubula, of TS Tshabalala Attorneys Inc, said the opposing lawyers had proposed hearing both applications together and later advised that they had secured November 6.
However, the party’s two advocates had professional commitments that day.
Dubula’s office proposed November 13 and identified dates when counsel would be unavailable.
“Our request is neither intended to frustrate the proceedings nor to occasion any unnecessary delay,” Dubula wrote.
Dubula also argued that the allocated date appeared to accommodate the opposing attorneys without adequately considering his legal team’s availability.
He said attempts to resolve the disagreement had failed after the MPs’ lawyers proposed conditions his clients would not accept.
But Lingani and Partners maintained that the risk to their seats required an expedited hearing. “Your counsel’s involvement in other matters do not constitute sufficient grounds to delay the hearing,” the attorneys wrote.
They proposed a virtual hearing before High Court trials begin at 10am and said they would ask Judge Thulare to expedite proceedings.
- Two expelled MK Party MPs, Pumlani Kubukeli and Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala, fear their seats could be replaced before a court judgment is enforced.
- The MPs' lawyers have demanded assurances that the MK Party will not replace the MPs in Parliament during the ongoing legal challenge.
- A Cape Town High Court hearing date was set for November 20 to address two applications related to the dispute.
- The MK Party and Jacob Zuma are seeking leave to appeal an earlier judgment, while the MPs want permission to enforce it despite the appeal.
- Attorneys for the MPs resisted a request to move the hearing from November 6 to November 13 and proposed a virtual hearing to expedite proceedings.
Two expelled MK Party MPs fear the party could pull a sucker punch by replacing them in Parliament while challenging a court judgment in their favour.
Pumlani Kubukeli and Khanyisile Litchfield-Tshabalala are fighting to enforce their victory, concerned that the party could fill their seats before the court hears the next round of their dispute.
Their lawyers have demanded assurances against replacement and resisted requests to move the hearing, warning that their clients remain exposed while the legal battle continues.
“Our clients are being severely prejudiced,” attorney Khanyisa Lingani wrote.
Cape Town High Court judge Daniel Thulare met both legal teams on Friday and set a date of November 20 to hear two applications.
The MK Party and its president, Jacob Zuma, want leave to appeal against the earlier judgment. The MPs want permission to implement it despite the pending appeal proceedings.
Their attorneys say the party has provided no assurances that it will leave the seats untouched.
In correspondence to the court registrar on October 29, MKP attorney Frans Dubula requested that the hearing move from November 6 to November 13.
Dubula, of TS Tshabalala Attorneys Inc, said the opposing lawyers had proposed hearing both applications together and later advised that they had secured November 6.
However, the party’s two advocates had professional commitments that day.
Dubula’s office proposed November 13 and identified dates when counsel would be unavailable.
“Our request is neither intended to frustrate the proceedings nor to occasion any unnecessary delay,” Dubula wrote.
Dubula also argued that the allocated date appeared to accommodate the opposing attorneys without adequately considering his legal team’s availability.
He said attempts to resolve the disagreement had failed after the MPs’ lawyers proposed conditions his clients would not accept.
But Lingani and Partners maintained that the risk to their seats required an expedited hearing. “Your counsel’s involvement in other matters do not constitute sufficient grounds to delay the hearing,” the attorneys wrote.
They proposed a virtual hearing before High Court trials begin at 10am and said they would ask Judge Thulare to expedite proceedings.
