Maxwele Royal Family and Another v Premier of the Eastern Cape Province and Others (1176/2021) [2023] ZASCA 73 (24 May 2023)

Maxwele Royal Family and Another v Premier of the Eastern Cape Province and Others (1176/2021) [2023] ZASCA 73 (24 May 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the identification of Asiphe Solanga Maxwele as successor to the headmanship of Zimbane in 2008 was lawful and remained valid. The appointment of Mrs Maxwele as regent was based on this identification and was accepted by the MEC. When Asiphe attained majority, the Premier and MEC were required to recognise him as headman, and could not lawfully ignore his identification or appoint another acting headman. The decisions to appoint Baxolele Maxwele as acting headman were unlawful, as they disregarded the extant identification of Asiphe and the prescribed procedures under the relevant legislation. The high court's findings regarding locus standi and the...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 73
Parties
Appellant: Maxwele Royal Family; Appellant: Asiphe Solanga Maxwele; Respondent: Premier of the Eastern Cape Province; Respondent: MEC for the Department of Co-operative and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Baxolele Maxwele; Respondent: Sangoni Royal Family
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 May 2023
Case Number
1176/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Mthatha
Outcome
Appeal upheld; high court order set aside; decisions appointing Baxolele Maxwele as acting headman reviewed and set aside.
Judges
Dambuza, Nicholls, Goosen, Nhlangulela, Mali
Legal Topics
Review of Administrative Action, Traditional Leadership, Appointment of Headman, Locus Standi, Customary Law, Recognition of Traditional Leaders
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Review of Administrative Action Traditional Leadership Appointment of Headman Locus Standi Customary Law Recognition of Traditional Leaders

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maxwele Royal Family

Appellant

Asiphe Solanga Maxwele

Appellant

Premier of the Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

MEC for the Department of Co-operative and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Baxolele Maxwele

Respondent

Sangoni Royal Family

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Mthatha

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the identification, recognition and appointment of Baxolele Maxwele as acting headman of Zimbane was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the Maxwele Royal Family had locus standi and authority to bring the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the procedures under the Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act were properly followed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the identification of Asiphe Solanga Maxwele as successor to the headmanship of Zimbane in 2008 was lawful and remained valid. The appointment of Mrs Maxwele as regent was based on this identification and was accepted by the MEC. When Asiphe attained majority, the Premier and MEC were required to recognise him as headman, and could not lawfully ignore his identification or appoint another acting headman. The decisions to appoint Baxolele Maxwele as acting headman were unlawful, as they disregarded the extant identification of Asiphe and the prescribed procedures under the relevant legislation. The high court's findings regarding locus standi and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; high court order set aside; decisions appointing Baxolele Maxwele as acting headman reviewed and set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed; such costs to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with the following order: (a) The second respondent’s decision to appoint the third respondent as acting headman of Zimbane Administrative Area, Mthatha is declared unlawful and accordingly reviewed and set aside. (b) The respondents are ordered to pay the costs...