The Democratic Alliance (DA) will file a review application of President Jacob Zuma's Cabinet reshuffle after their bid to halt the swearing in of new Cabinet ministers failed.
The Western Cape High Court dismissed the DA's bid on Friday to have the swearing in ceremony interdicted until after a vote of no confidence takes place in Parliament.
Judge Owen Rogers said the DA did not present a strong enough case based on facts for the court to intervene in the President's prerogative to select his own Cabinet, at this time.
DA federal executive chairperson James Selfe told journalists outside the court on Friday that the application was rushed, but the party still believes the issue must be addressed.
"This application was put together very rapidly. I only arrived back in South Africa at 1 O'clock [on Friday morning]," he said.
"We felt the haste was necessary because of the harm this Cabinet reshuffle has already done to the country and will continue to do the country."
Selfe said the court in its ruling gave good advice on how to structure its review application. The court said the legal process needs to be allowed to unfold.
"We do believe the reshuffle was preeminently irrational and was motivated by bad faith and will continue to cause massive damage to South Africa," Selfe said.
"We will now be using the comments made by the court to shape the application which we intend to bring in the shortest possible time."
The application could be brought as early as Monday.
'Heartland of President's powers'
Judge Rogers earlier said the court was being asked to go further than it had ever gone before in interfering with a sitting president's powers.
"This case goes to the heartland of the President's ability to act and make decisions."
He said whether Zuma's decision was good or bad was irrelevant. The DA based its applications on conclusions and implications, rather than facts for the reshuffle.
Although the future may well get more uncomfortable for South Africans, the legal processes need to unfold so that the Constitution can be vindicated, he added.
The court's ruling also was not a vindication of Zuma's decision to reshuffle, only that at this point in time, it could not intervene.
The court noted the DA's intention to take Zuma's reshuffle on judicial review and reserved a ruling on costs until the review was completed.