Molosi and Others v Phahlo Royal Family and Others (CA 07/2021) [2022] ZAECMHC 10; [2022] 3 All SA 160 (ECM) (6 May 2022)

Molosi and Others v Phahlo Royal Family and Others (CA 07/2021) [2022] ZAECMHC 10; [2022] 3 All SA 160 (ECM) (6 May 2022)

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the respondents had established urgency and a clear right to seek declaratory and interdictory relief. The harm to the AmaMpondomise community was ongoing and justified intervention. The court held that the dispute between the two royal families regarding the rightful heir could not be resolved internally, and the Framework Act did not bar the respondents from approaching the court for relief. The President's letter referring the matter back to the royal family was ineffective given the longstanding dispute. The court exercised its discretion to grant the declaratory and interdictory orders and found no basis to interfere with the costs order...

Citation
[2022] ZAECMHC 10
Parties
Appellant: Simpiwe Sydwell Molosi; Appellant: Ntombenkonzo Maseti; Appellant: Dosini Royal Family; Respondent: Phahlo Royal Family; Respondent: Luzuko Matiwane; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Premier of the Eastern Cape Province
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2022
Case Number
CA 07/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Makaula, IT Stretch, GH Bloem
Legal Topics
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, Declaratory Relief, Final Interdict, Customary Law Dispute, Internal Remedies, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act Declaratory Relief Final Interdict Customary Law Dispute Internal Remedies Judicial Review

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simpiwe Sydwell Molosi

Appellant

Ntombenkonzo Maseti

Appellant

Dosini Royal Family

Appellant

Phahlo Royal Family

Respondent

Luzuko Matiwane

Respondent

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Premier of the Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether urgency was established in the court a quo.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents established the jurisdictional facts to sustain the requirements of a final interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo was correct in not ordering that the dispute be resolved in terms of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the respondents had established urgency and a clear right to seek declaratory and interdictory relief. The harm to the AmaMpondomise community was ongoing and justified intervention. The court held that the dispute between the two royal families regarding the rightful heir could not be resolved internally, and the Framework Act did not bar the respondents from approaching the court for relief. The President's letter referring the matter back to the royal family was ineffective given the longstanding dispute. The court exercised its discretion to grant the declaratory and interdictory orders and found no basis to interfere with the costs order...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The costs order includes costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel where applicable.