Muthaphuli Royal Family and Another v Muthaki Royal Family and Another (1064/2019) [2025] ZALMPTHC 4 (10 March 2025)

Muthaphuli Royal Family and Another v Muthaki Royal Family and Another (1064/2019) [2025] ZALMPTHC 4 (10 March 2025)

The court held that the order of Makhafola J, granted in 2019, remains binding and enforceable until it is set aside by a competent court sitting as a review or appeal court. Section 165(5) of the Constitution provides that court orders bind all persons and organs of state to whom they apply, regardless of their validity. The applicants' attempt to set aside the previous order in a motion court before a single judge is procedurally incorrect and cannot be granted. The proper process to challenge a court order is through appeal or review, not by direct application in a motion court. As none of the respondents opposed the application, no costs order was made against them.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPTHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Muthaphuli Royal Family; Applicant: Michael Muthaphuli; Respondent: Muthakhi Royal Family; Respondent: Muthakhi Percy; Applicant: Muthakhi Matodzi Abel; Respondent: Members of the Muthakhi Royal Family or their nominees or agent; Respondent: Muthaphuli Ntshimiseni; Respondent: Mthaphuli Alukhwathi; Respondent: Muthaphuli Nditsheni; Respondent: Netshandama Christopher; Respondent: Baloyi Tjatjani Solomon; Respondent: Mukhumo Herman; Respondent: Mphaphuli Traditional Council
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2025
Case Number
1064/2019
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with no order as to costs.
Judges
Semenya
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Court Order, Section 165 Constitution, Binding Effect of Judgments
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Setting Aside Court Order Section 165 Constitution Binding Effect of Judgments

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muthaphuli Royal Family

Applicant

Michael Muthaphuli

Applicant

Muthakhi Royal Family

Respondent

Muthakhi Percy

Respondent

Muthakhi Matodzi Abel

Applicant

Members of the Muthakhi Royal Family or their nominees or agent

Respondent

Muthaphuli Ntshimiseni

Respondent

Mthaphuli Alukhwathi

Respondent

Muthaphuli Nditsheni

Respondent

Netshandama Christopher

Respondent

Baloyi Tjatjani Solomon

Respondent

Mukhumo Herman

Respondent

Mphaphuli Traditional Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a motion court before a single judge can set aside a previous court order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to relief in light of section 165(5) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the previous order of Makhafola J remains binding until set aside by a competent court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the order of Makhafola J, granted in 2019, remains binding and enforceable until it is set aside by a competent court sitting as a review or appeal court. Section 165(5) of the Constitution provides that court orders bind all persons and organs of state to whom they apply, regardless of their validity. The applicants' attempt to set aside the previous order in a motion court before a single judge is procedurally incorrect and cannot be granted. The proper process to challenge a court order is through appeal or review, not by direct application in a motion court. As none of the respondents opposed the application, no costs order was made against them.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no order as to costs.