In this matter Applicants are seeking interim relief pending an application to review their expulsion from the council for the Umvoti Local Municipality. The only Respondent which is not opposing the relief claimed is the Independent Electoral Commission (Second Respondent). The Municipal Manager Umvoti Local Municipality, the Council for Umvoti Local Municipality and the Umvoti Local Municipality (First, Fourth and Fifth Respondents) were represented by Mr Luthuli and the MEC for Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Kwazulu-Natal (Third Respondent) by Mr Pammenter SC who appeared together with Ms Mbonena. Applicants were represented by Mr Xulu.
 A similar application was brought by Petros Mthandeni Ngubane as the Applicant represented by Mr Moodley SC but in that matter the Respondents are different in that Mr Ngubane was also a member of the Umzinyathi District Municipality.
 Both matters result from the expulsion of Applicants from the Umvoti Municipality council and although there are many similarities between the two applications I will deal with them separately. It was however submitted by Mr Xulu appearing on behalf of Applicants in case number 14327/2023P and Mr Moodley SC appearing in case number 14399/23P for Applicant that in the event of Applicants being successful they both seek an order similar to that which is sought in case number 14399/2023P.
 Only interim relief pending the review application is sought at this stage. The main issues are that of urgency and whether a case has been made out for interim relief. There was further contentions by Respondents that there was non-joinder of the other political parties in the council.
 Mr Singh appeared on behalf of the Abantu Batho Congress handed up an affidavit and requested that the party be granted leave to intervene. Mr Xulu submitted he did not receive the affidavit and Mr Pammenter SC and Mr Luthuli submitted that they have no objection if the Abantu Batho Congress is granted leave to be joined. Mr Singh aligned himself with the Respondents submissions and made no further submissions.
 The expulsion of Applicants results from allegations that they did not attend certain meetings of the Umvoti Council. It is contended by Applicants that on 18 September 2023 Third Respondent communicated her decision to First and Second Respondent. This was after Third Respondent appointed a committee of three persons to conduct an investigation on 4 September 2023. Applicants were expelled without observing the procedure provided for in Rule 16(8) read with section 3 of PAJA. It was further contended that the sanction was not appropriate in the circumstances.