Publications
Partners
- The Supreme Court of Appeal has disclosed EFF leader Julius Malema's application to appeal the interdict by AfriForum to prevent land occupation has been dismissed.
- This is another loss for Malema whose application has been rejected by the High Court, Constitutional Court, and now the SCA.
- According to the court, his appeal had been dismissed with costs, adding there was no prospect of it succeeding.
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 seen by News24 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: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.
READ | EFF loses bid to appeal AfriForum's interdict in land occupation case
News24 previously reported 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.
Previously News24 reported that advocate Kathleen Hardy, who represented the SAHRC, said Malema had defended his utterances for people to take back the land by stating it would follow constitutional procedures.
