- UDF Party asked the court for relief from the 28 August ward nomination deadline.
- The party later suggested it could use placeholder candidates in several wards.
- The Electoral Court dismissed the application and did not make any order about costs.
The United Democratic Front (UDF) Party tried to get on Cape Town’s municipal ballot for the 4 November 2026 local government elections, but the Electoral Court dismissed its urgent request for more time to nominate ward candidates.
The newly-registered political party said its registration was only finalised on 24 August, which left it with just four days to find ward candidates, get their consent and submit nomination documents before the 28 August deadline.
Four days to build a ballot
The UDF Party said it planned to contest about 110 wards in the City of Cape Town. After it got confirmation of its registration, the party launched public recruitment drives, held urgent meetings and started approaching candidates.
Before nominations closed, the party asked the Electoral Commission of South Africa to change the election timetable and give it more time for ward nominations. The IEC refused, so the party launched an urgent court application.
Placeholder candidates proposed
When the matter was heard on the evening of 28 August, the party had narrowed what it was asking for. Instead of asking for a blanket extension, the party wanted the court to allow it to nominate placeholder candidates in several wards and then replace them with preferred candidates by the next electoral deadline on 4 September.
The IEC opposed both requests, saying the Municipal Electoral Act does not allow late ward nominations or the use of temporary placeholder candidates.
Court says the law offers no exemption
In a unanimous judgment, Judge LR Adams, Acting N Judge Mangcu-Lockwood and Professor MR Phooko found that the relief the United Democratic Front Party wanted was not available under the Municipal Electoral Act.
The court said the Electoral Commission has no power to exempt one political party from a statutory deadline that applies to every other party and independent candidate. It said the election timetable can only be changed in general if it is necessary to ensure a free and fair election, not just to accommodate the circumstances of one contestant.
The judges also found that the party’s situation was partly of its own making. They said the party was never legally prevented from identifying wards, recruiting candidates, getting their consent or completing nomination forms while its registration was still pending.
Instead, it only began publicly recruiting candidates around 23 August, even though nominations had been open for weeks.
The court also rejected the placeholder proposal, finding that the law only allows substitutions for candidates who were validly nominated before the deadline.
Using placeholder candidates would be like submitting new nominations after the deadline and would mean nominating people in wards they never intended to contest.
The application was dismissed, and each party was told to pay its own costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
