By Malaika Ditabo.
EFF leader Julius Malema’s application to appeal an interdict by lobby group AfriForum, which prohibited him from instigating land grabs, has been dismissed with costs by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA).
This after Malema attempted to appeal the order by Judge Peter Mabuse in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which in January ruled the encouragement of the illegal occupation of land by the EFF was unconstitutional and lawless.
The application for leave to appeal revealed the party leader had tried to challenge this order at the SCA on 28 March.
However, the court outlined the verdict by Mabuse remained.
It read: Having considered the Notice of Motion and the other documents filed. It is ordered that: 1. Condonation, as applied for, is granted. The applicant for condonation is to pay the costs of the application. 2. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs on the grounds that there is no reasonable prospect of success in an appeal and there is no other compelling reason why an appeal should be heard.
The court ruled should the party continue to advocate for the invasion and illegal occupation of land, it would be considered a severe crime.
This marks another loss for Malema and the EFF in their efforts to appeal the interdict, which was first launched and granted in 2017 by AfriForum, which said the party was instructing its supporters to trespass.
The High Court and Constitutional Court have rejected Malema’s application for leave to appeal, and now the SCA.
Before that, the first interdict granted to AfriForum was defaulted due to Malema’s attorney’s not appearing in court.
Mabuse cited his reasons for dismissing the EFF’s appeal application to the judgment by the Constitutional Court, which declared the party’s coaxing of supporters was criminal.
It, however, has not been all losses for the EFF leader, who emerged victorious and was absolved of hate speech by the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), which found he had not violated anyone’s rights.
According to the SAHRC, its thorough investigations did not support the arguments by the FW de Klerk Foundation and AfriForum, which pleaded for the case to be reviewed.
The two organisations argued the SAHRC did not investigate the complaints about hate speech utterances.