Matiwane v President of the Republic (2026/2011) [2013] ZAECMHC 37; [2014] 2 All SA 419 (ECM) (12 December 2013)

Matiwane v President of the Republic (2026/2011) [2013] ZAECMHC 37; [2014] 2 All SA 419 (ECM) (12 December 2013)

The court found that the Commission's decision was procedurally unfair and subject to review. The Commission failed to provide the applicant with the adverse information it relied upon, denying him a meaningful opportunity to respond as required by the audi alteram partem rule and section 3(2)(a)(ii) of PAJA. The Commission's refusal to disclose the sources and nature of its adverse information was insufficient to satisfy procedural fairness. The court held that the applicant ought to have been provided with all relevant information, especially that which was adverse to his claim, to enable him to contextualize and respond meaningfully. This failure rendered the Commission's decision...

Citation
[2013] ZAECMHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Luzuko Matiwane; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Vicks Velile Tonjeni; Respondent: Masibulele Maseti; Respondent: Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2013
Case Number
2062/2011
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Opposed Motion Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The Commission's decision is reviewed and set aside.
Judges
Griffiths
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Customary Law, Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review, Traditional Leadership, Audi Alteram Partem
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Customary Law Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Traditional Leadership Audi Alteram Partem

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luzuko Matiwane

Applicant

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Vicks Velile Tonjeni

Respondent

Masibulele Maseti

Respondent

Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Opposed Motion Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims' decision denying the existence of AmaMpondomise kingship was lawful, reasonable, and procedurally fair.
  2. 2 Whether the Commission failed to provide the applicant with a meaningful opportunity to respond to adverse information.
  3. 3 Whether the Commission's decision should be set aside on review for procedural unfairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Commission's decision was procedurally unfair and subject to review. The Commission failed to provide the applicant with the adverse information it relied upon, denying him a meaningful opportunity to respond as required by the audi alteram partem rule and section 3(2)(a)(ii) of PAJA. The Commission's refusal to disclose the sources and nature of its adverse information was insufficient to satisfy procedural fairness. The court held that the applicant ought to have been provided with all relevant information, especially that which was adverse to his claim, to enable him to contextualize and respond meaningfully. This failure rendered the Commission's decision...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The Commission's decision is reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The decision of the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims (sixth respondent), denying the existence of AmaMpondomise kingship and refusing to in-state or reinstate such kingship, is reviewed and set aside.
  • The first, second, third, and sixth respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs of two counsel where employed.