Kekana and Another v Premier, Limpopo Provincial Department and Others (REV126/2018) [2022] ZALMPPHC 58 (28 October 2022)

Kekana and Another v Premier, Limpopo Provincial Department and Others (REV126/2018) [2022] ZALMPPHC 58 (28 October 2022)

The court found that the Premier acted lawfully in removing the First Applicant as Senior Traditional Leader, as the decision was based on the recommendations of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, which conducted a thorough investigation and found neither the First Applicant nor the Fourth Respondent to be legitimate heirs under Ndebele customary law. The Premier was not required by statute to afford the Applicants a hearing before implementing the Commission's recommendation, and the proper forum for representations was the Commission, which the Applicants declined to attend. The previous court decision did not render the matter res judicata, as it concerned...

Citation
[2022] ZALMPPHC 58
Parties
Applicant: Lesiba Vaaltyn Kekana; Applicant: Mokopane Traditional Authority; Respondent: Premier, Limpopo Provincial Department; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council; Respondent: Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Provincial Government; Respondent: Commission on Traditional Disputes and Claims; Respondent: Lesiba Vaaltyn (Lekgobo) Kekana; Respondent: Mgombane Royal Council; Respondent: Senior Royal Family of Ga-Kgubudi
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2022
Case Number
REV126/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment on Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Traditional Leadership Disputes, Customary Law Succession, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Review of Administrative Action
Administrative Law Land and Property Traditional Leadership Disputes Customary Law Succession Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Review of Administrative Action

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesiba Vaaltyn Kekana

Applicant

Mokopane Traditional Authority

Applicant

Premier, Limpopo Provincial Department

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council

Respondent

Department of Cooperative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs, Limpopo Provincial Government

Respondent

Commission on Traditional Disputes and Claims

Respondent

Lesiba Vaaltyn (Lekgobo) Kekana

Respondent

Mgombane Royal Council

Respondent

Senior Royal Family of Ga-Kgubudi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment on Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Premier was correct in removing the First Applicant as Senior Traditional Leader and ordering the royal family to marry a candle wife.
  2. 2 Whether the Second and Third Respondents properly discharged their duties in investigating the chieftainship dispute.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants had a right to be consulted prior to the Premier's decision and whether a duty existed to afford them an opportunity to make representations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Premier acted lawfully in removing the First Applicant as Senior Traditional Leader, as the decision was based on the recommendations of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, which conducted a thorough investigation and found neither the First Applicant nor the Fourth Respondent to be legitimate heirs under Ndebele customary law. The Premier was not required by statute to afford the Applicants a hearing before implementing the Commission's recommendation, and the proper forum for representations was the Commission, which the Applicants declined to attend. The previous court decision did not render the matter res judicata, as it concerned...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The Sixth Respondent shall not be entitled to the costs of this application.