Kobe and Others v Lebogo and Others (HCAA14/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 31 (28 June 2021)

Kobe and Others v Lebogo and Others (HCAA14/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 31 (28 June 2021)

The court found that the appellants were not required to bring a condonation application for late filing of their review application, as they instituted proceedings within the 180-day period after exhausting internal remedies, as required by PAJA. The process of removing the appellants as headmen/women was procedurally unfair and did not comply with statutory and constitutional requirements. The appellants were not properly notified, were denied a fair hearing, and did not receive written reasons for their removal. The identification of their successors was not conducted by the appropriate royal families, and the statutory procedures for misconduct inquiries were not followed. The court...

Citation
[2021] ZALMPPHC 31
Parties
Appellant: Headman Enos Matome Kobe; Appellant: Morukhu Matome Alfred; Appellant: Phala Notme Simon; Appellant: Kgatla Mashilo Phillip; Appellant: Kubu Ngoako Abram; Appellant: Lebogo Moloko Courtly; Appellant: Lekwara Matlou Albert; Appellant: Mailula Kolobe Patrick; Appellant: Manaka Nhlodi Samuel; Appellant: Maboya Mkgodi Wilson; Appellant: Maleka Ntome Dalton; Appellant: Moneya Madjadji; Appellant: Theledi Mantase Jacob; Respondent: Kgoshi Ngoako Issac Lebogo; Respondent: Bahananwa Traditional Council; Respondent: Premier Limpopo; Respondent: MEC of COGHSTA; Respondent: Chairperson of Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2021
Case Number
HCAA14/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment; Leave Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; appellants reinstated as headmen/women with salary arrears; costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
MF Kganyago, EM Makgoba, G Muller
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Traditional Leadership Removal, Audi Alteram Partem, Condonation for Late Review, Customary Law Procedure
Administrative Law Land and Property Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Traditional Leadership Removal Audi Alteram Partem Condonation for Late Review Customary Law Procedure

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Headman Enos Matome Kobe

Appellant

Morukhu Matome Alfred

Appellant

Phala Notme Simon

Appellant

Kgatla Mashilo Phillip

Appellant

Kubu Ngoako Abram

Appellant

Lebogo Moloko Courtly

Appellant

Lekwara Matlou Albert

Appellant

Mailula Kolobe Patrick

Appellant

Manaka Nhlodi Samuel

Appellant

Maboya Mkgodi Wilson

Appellant

Maleka Ntome Dalton

Appellant

Moneya Madjadji

Appellant

Theledi Mantase Jacob

Appellant

Kgoshi Ngoako Issac Lebogo

Respondent

Bahananwa Traditional Council

Respondent

Premier Limpopo

Respondent

MEC of COGHSTA

Respondent

Chairperson of Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against High Court Judgment; Leave Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were required to bring a condonation application for late filing of their review application.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the appellants as headmen/women was procedurally fair and in accordance with the law.
  3. 3 Whether the correct customary and statutory procedures were followed in the removal and replacement of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants were not required to bring a condonation application for late filing of their review application, as they instituted proceedings within the 180-day period after exhausting internal remedies, as required by PAJA. The process of removing the appellants as headmen/women was procedurally unfair and did not comply with statutory and constitutional requirements. The appellants were not properly notified, were denied a fair hearing, and did not receive written reasons for their removal. The identification of their successors was not conducted by the appropriate royal families, and the statutory procedures for misconduct inquiries were not followed. The court...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; appellants reinstated as headmen/women with salary arrears; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted as follows: