The applicant sought an interlocutory injunction to extend the voting period in the respondent political party's leadership contest, alleging that he and others had not received the necessary verification numbers to vote electronically.
The court dismissed the application on two grounds.
First, the applicant failed to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms provided in the party's election rules before seeking court intervention.
Second, applying the tripartite test for an interlocutory injunction, the court found that the balance of convenience heavily favoured the respondents, as extending the voting period at the eleventh hour would prejudice the tens of thousands of members who had already voted and disrupt the scheduled leadership convention.
