The Court of Appeal has on Friday ruled that Socialist Revolutionaries (SR) should not have approached the High Court in its ordinary sitting for its case against the Speaker of the National Assembly and others.

The party had filed an application before the High Court seeking a review of a decision by the Speaker of the National Assembly who sought to appoint a member of Movement for Economic Change (MEC) Mr. Chabaseile Mabusela as a Member of Parliament in place of a member of SR Ms. Mamarame Matela who had resigned. 

Mr. Mabusela was put on a proportional representation list following an agreement between the leaders of SR and MEC, prior to the October 2022 general elections, to form an alliance within the Matelile Constituency. 

The appellants had before the High Court argued that the law requires 50 percent male and female representation therefore, Ms. Matela had to be replaced by a female. The court declined jurisdiction and stated that they should have gone to the Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) with their matter.

They then appealed against the decision and the Court of Appeal ordered that the appellants should have petitioned the Court of Disputed Returns. It thus directed that the appeal be dismissed.

Advocate Letuka Molati who was representing some of the respondents in the appeal had argued that the appellant should go to a proper court with their complaint. He submitted that the High Court in its ordinary sitting does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

He indicated that it is through the High Court, sitting as the Court of disputed returns, the matter can be heard. He argued that the matter involves issues of allocation of seats thus an electoral dispute. 

He said it is the Court of Disputed Returns which deals with electoral disputes. He added that the conduct of the Speaker of the National Assembly can also be challenged before the same court.

The appeal was heard by Justice Moses Chinghengo, Dr. Johann Van de Westeheizen and Philip Musonda.