The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has thrown out EFF leader Julius Malema’s request to challenge a court order preventing him from instigating land grabs, that was issued by lobbying organization AfriForum.

Malema challenged the verdict of Judge Peter Mabuse in the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria, which had decided in January that, encouraging the EFF’s illegal land occupation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

The application disclosed that, the party leader attempted to overturn this ruling. The court however, did state that, Justice Mabuse’s verdict stood.

“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.”
Court Verdit.

According to the court, the party would be guilty of a serious felony, if they continued to support invasion and unauthorized occupation of land.

This represents yet another setback for Malema and the EFF in their attempts to challenge the interdict, which AfriForum initially requested and granted in 2017 on the grounds that, the party was directing its members to trespass. Prior to that, Malema’s attorney’s absence from court caused the first interdict issued to AfriForum to be forfeited.

Moreover, Judge Mabuse laid down the grounds for rejecting the EFF’s appeal of the Constitutional Court’s ruling that, the party’s coercion of supporters was unlawful.

On the other hand, it has not all been defeat for Julius Malema. The SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), ruled that, the EFF head had not violated anyone’s rights, declared him not guilty of hate speech.

After extensive investigations, the SAHRC revealed, the FW de Klerk Foundation and AfriForum’s claims that, the case should be reexamined did not hold up. The SAHRC, according to the two organizations, did not look into the reports of hate speech statements.