Mphephu-Ramabulana and Another v Mphephu and Others (CCT 121/20) [2021] ZACC 43; 2022 (1) BCLR 20 (CC) (12 November 2021)

Mphephu-Ramabulana and Another v Mphephu and Others (CCT 121/20) [2021] ZACC 43; 2022 (1) BCLR 20 (CC) (12 November 2021)

The Constitutional Court refused condonation for the late filing of the main application for leave to appeal, finding the delay inordinate and the explanations inadequate. The applicants' reasons for waiting for the Houses of Traditional Leaders' reports and logistical difficulties were rejected as insufficient. The Court held that compliance with its rules is mandatory and that the interests of justice did not favour granting condonation, especially given the lack of prospects of success on the merits. The main application was dismissed. The intervention application was not considered, as its relevance depended on the main application proceeding. The Court granted condonation to Ms...

Citation
[2021] ZACC 43
Parties
Applicant: Khosikhulu Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana; Applicant: Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family Council; Respondent: Masindi Clementine Mphephu; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Premier, Limpopo; Respondent: National House of Traditional Leaders; Respondent: Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders; Respondent: Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims; Applicant: Ravhura Royal Kingship Council; Applicant: Amos Tshenuwani Mukapu Ravhura
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2021
Case Number
CCT 121/20
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal; Cross Appeal; Counter Applications
Outcome
Main application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of condonation; cross-appeal on costs and stay order upheld.
Judges
Khampepe, Jafta, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Traditional Leadership Recognition, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Bill of Rights Limitation, Condonation, Costs in Constitutional Litigation, Remedial Powers
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Traditional Leadership Recognition Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Bill of Rights Limitation Condonation Costs in Constitutional Litigation +1 more

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khosikhulu Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana

Applicant

Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family Council

Applicant

Masindi Clementine Mphephu

Respondent

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Premier, Limpopo

Respondent

National House of Traditional Leaders

Respondent

Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders

Respondent

Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims

Respondent

Ravhura Royal Kingship Council

Applicant

Amos Tshenuwani Mukapu Ravhura

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Condonation and Leave to Appeal; Cross Appeal; Counter Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the main application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal's stay order was just and equitable.
  3. 3 Whether the Supreme Court of Appeal's costs order was appropriate in light of the Biowatch principle.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court refused condonation for the late filing of the main application for leave to appeal, finding the delay inordinate and the explanations inadequate. The applicants' reasons for waiting for the Houses of Traditional Leaders' reports and logistical difficulties were rejected as insufficient. The Court held that compliance with its rules is mandatory and that the interests of justice did not favour granting condonation, especially given the lack of prospects of success on the merits. The main application was dismissed. The intervention application was not considered, as its relevance depended on the main application proceeding. The Court granted condonation to Ms...

Court Disposition

Main application for leave to appeal dismissed for want of condonation; cross-appeal on costs and stay order upheld.

Orders

  • Condonation is refused in the main application.
  • The main application is dismissed.