The court reviewed and overturned an internal elective conference held by the African National Congress (ANC) in Parys, Free State in June 2012.

All five executive leaders were elected unopposed, and Ace Magashule, who was also the Premier of the Free State, secured his fourth consecutive term as Provincial Chairperson.

Dukwana's supporters alleged that many of the delegates who attended the provincial conference had been selected according to improper procedures, in violation of the ANC constitution, in order to predetermine a victory for Magashule and his faction.

In August 2012, six ordinary branch members of the Free State ANC, led by Mpho Ramakatsa, applied to the High Court of South Africa to challenge the propriety of the provincial conference.

Van der Westhuizen, who had not heard the original application for leave to appeal, joined the coram in place of Justice Cameron, who did not hear the merits.

As private organisations, individual political parties may choose how to regulate their members' exercise of the section 19(1)(b) participation right; the ANC did so through its constitution and subsidiary rules.

The irregularities in the Free State conference therefore violated the applicants' right to participate in the activities of their political party, the ANC.

However, the "factual basis" for the court's review was the assertion that the ANC had failed to investigate the alleged procedural irregularities, thereby violating its own constitution.

After the judgment was handed down, the ANC National Executive Committee abided by the Constitutional Court's decision and disbanded the Free State PEC as elected at the June 2012 conference.

[7][8] The elected members were therefore barred from voting at the 52nd National Conference later that week, though Zuma nonetheless won re-election to the ANC presidency.

[14][15] In 2021, Magashule himself relied on Ramakatsa in his legal challenge to the ANC's internal step-aside rule and its use to suspend him from the party.

[18] More specifically, it provided an influential conception of the role of political parties in participatory democracy; in New Nation Movement v President, the court grappled with Ramakatsa's application or lack thereof to the constitutional status of independent candidates.

[19] Insofar as it expanded jurisprudence on the interpretation of section 19 of the Constitution, Pierre de Vos viewed Ramakatsa as a "slight correction" to the court's earlier judgments in United Democratic Movement v President and New National Party v Government, which had been criticised for espousing a "narrow and formalistic view" of democracy and political rights.