efficient administration of justice for an applicant to apply for remedies on the 11th hour, and for his legal practitioners to choose a wrong procedure and thereafter expect the court to extricate them from their chosen timing and procedure, without their doing what the law of procedure requires them to do, to achieve that objective.68 Research suggests that petitioners and litigants must exercise due diligence to circumvent the procedural hurdles in court processes. In addition, there is also need for judicial activism, where courts are prepared to deal with merits of cases involving constitutional issues without over-emphasising procedural irregularities. In Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Ors,69 the Constitutional Court of South Africa relied on the same principle of flexibility, where it is stated that: Flexibility in applying requirements of procedure is common in our courts. Even where enacted rules of court are involved, our courts reserve for themselves the power to condone noncompliance if the interests of justice require them to do so. Rigidity has no place in the operation of court procedures.70 RESEARCH SUGGESTS THAT PETITIONERS AND LITIGANTS MUST EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROCEDURAL HURDLES IN COURT PROCESSES 69 70 71 72 COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CONDUCT OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORAL PETITIONS The case of Morgan Tsvangirai vs Robert Mugabe and others [CCZ 7/2013] was the first presidential election petition under the 2013 Constitution. The Applicant sought a declaration that the elections were null and void. In his Founding Affidavit, the Applicant argued that “traditional leaders commandeered rural voters under their jurisdiction to vote at specific times and to declare illiteracy so that they would be ‘assisted’ to vote.” However, the issue was never properly ventilated and decided, as the petitioner withdrew his case before the Constitutional Court could deliberate on it. The reasons for withdrawal hinged on the fact that petitioner had not received the requested election material for use in the petition, thus, he could not meaningfully argue his case.71 In the case of Chamisa & Ors v Emmerson Mnangagwa & Ors,72 the conduct of traditional leaders and rogue security elements was one of the grounds for challenging the outcome of the 2018 Presidential elections. The Applicant alleged that he had evidence to show that traditional leaders were involved in the electoral process as election agents on behalf of the first respondent, Emmerson Mnangagwa. He contended that there were people who identified themselves as security officers, who went about campaigning on behalf of Mr. Mnangagwa. He alleged that these people were threatening villagers. It was alleged that the ZEC failed to condemn the conduct of the traditional leaders and rogue security agents. Mr Mpofu, representing Nelson Chamisa, referred to the involvement of traditional leaders, who allegedly threatened some members of the electorate to vote for Mr. Mnangagwa. He alleged duress as an element that questioned the validity of Mr. Mnangagwa’s win. In the same breath, it Mukaddam v Pioneer Foods (Pty) Ltd and Ors 2013 5 SA 89 (CC). Para 39. See also the case of PFE International and Others v Industrial Department Corporation of South Africa Ltd2013 1 SA 1 (CC) where the Court reaffirmed the principle that rules of procedure must be applied flexibly. Part of the Affidavit withdrawing the Presidential election petition in case number CCZ71/13 read as follows: As at the time of deposing to this affidavit (3.43pm) on Friday August 16 2013) the judgment in the applications (for election material) had not been delivered. This in my view, seriously handicaps my prosecution of the petition and it had rendered it impracticable for me to proceed with same. The fact that I still do not have the material means that I cannot meaningfully prosecute my petition. Nelson Chamisa v Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa and Others CCZ 21/19. 19