Thulare v Sekhukhune and Another (3494/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 44 (3 July 2020)

Thulare v Sekhukhune and Another (3494/2020) [2020] ZALMPPHC 44 (3 July 2020)

The court found that the application was urgent, as the applicant would not be afforded substantial redress at a later hearing, especially given the imminent inauguration date. The points of non-joinder raised by the respondents were dismissed, as none of the suggested parties had a direct or substantial interest in the relief sought, which was aimed at curbing the unlawful conduct of the respondents. On the merits, the court held that the respondents, by failing to publicly disassociate themselves from the press statement and campaign, tacitly participated in the efforts to undermine the applicant's kingship and promote the second respondent's inauguration. The first respondent's bare...

Citation
[2020] ZALMPPHC 44
Parties
Applicant: Thulare Victor Thulare; Respondent: Kgagudi Kenneth Sekhukhune; Respondent: Sekwati Khutjo Sekhukhune
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 July 2020
Case Number
3494/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application on Urgent Roll
Outcome
Application granted. Interdictory relief awarded in favour of the applicant. Costs awarded against respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
EM Makgoba
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Traditional Leadership Dispute, Urgent Relief, Joinder, Rule of Law
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Final Interdict Traditional Leadership Dispute Urgent Relief Joinder Rule of Law

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulare Victor Thulare

Applicant

Kgagudi Kenneth Sekhukhune

Respondent

Sekwati Khutjo Sekhukhune

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application on Urgent Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on the urgent roll.
  2. 2 Whether there is a need to join additional parties to the proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents participated in or associated themselves with the campaign to reject the applicant's kingship and to enthrone the second respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was urgent, as the applicant would not be afforded substantial redress at a later hearing, especially given the imminent inauguration date. The points of non-joinder raised by the respondents were dismissed, as none of the suggested parties had a direct or substantial interest in the relief sought, which was aimed at curbing the unlawful conduct of the respondents. On the merits, the court held that the respondents, by failing to publicly disassociate themselves from the press statement and campaign, tacitly participated in the efforts to undermine the applicant's kingship and promote the second respondent's inauguration. The first respondent's bare...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Interdictory relief awarded in favour of the applicant. Costs awarded against respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The First Respondent is ordered to step down as Acting Kgoshikgolo (Acting King) of the Bapedi.
  • The First Respondent must stop claiming that his son, the Second Respondent, is the rightful King-to-be of the Bapedi Nation.