South Africa Case Law

Magwala v Chief Sinthumule and Others (744/2021)

Magwala v Chief Sinthumule and Others (744/2021) [2023] ZASCA 62 (5 May 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

744/2021

Judges

Mocumie, Nicholls, Carelse, Matojane, Nhlangulela

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dispute regarding the identification of Ms Magwala as headwoman of Gogobole Village was fundamentally a matter of customary law and customs, which required resolution through the mechanisms prescribed by the Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act and the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act. The Premier had not made a decision to recognise Ms Magwala, and there was no evidence that the Royal Family had informed the Premier as required. Both the High Court and the Full Court erred by adjudicating the merits of the identifica…

Source excerpt

• Customary Law Dispute Resolution
• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act
• Framework Act Section 21
• Identification Of Headwoman
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies

Thulare v Thulare and Others In Re: Thulare and Another v Thulare and Others (8767/2021)

Thulare v Thulare and Others In Re: Thulare and Another v Thulare and Others (8767/2021) [2022] ZALMPPHC 53 (19 October 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

8767/2021

Judge

E M Makgoba

The court found that the meeting of 28 February 2021 was the only properly constituted royal family meeting, attended by the requisite immediate and close relatives as required by statute and custom. The decision to appoint Morwamohube Ernest Thulare as Acting King and seed raiser was valid and in accordance with Bapedi tradition, which dictates that in the absence of a candle wife and hereditary successor, the most senior brother is appointed to revive the house. The meetings convened by Manyaku Maria Thulare on 21 February and 9 March 2021 were not properly constituted, attended only by a l…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Succession
• Customary Law Application
• Royal Family Composition
• Acting Traditional Leader Recognition
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act
• Khoi San Leadership Act

Rikhotso v Premier Limpopo Province and Others (943/2017)

Rikhotso v Premier Limpopo Province and Others (943/2017) [2022] ZALMPTHC 6 (9 May 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

943/2017

Judge

AML Phatudi

The High Court set aside the removal of a headman and the termination of his salary, holding that the Nsavulani Royal Family had not recommended removal as required by provincial law.

• Traditional Leadership Removal
• Customary Law Application
• Administrative Review
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act
• Administrative-review
• Traditional-leadership

B.B.R v Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders and Others (HCAA11/2021 1459/2017)

B.B.R v Limpopo House of Traditional Leaders and Others (HCAA11/2021 1459/2017) [2022] ZALMPPHC 17 (16 March 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA11/2021 1459/2017

Judges

Makgoba, G C Muller, K L Pillay

The court found that the meeting of 30 October 2016, at which the resolution to remove the Second Respondent was adopted, was not a legitimate meeting of the royal family as required by the Limpopo Act. The attendees were not properly identified as royal family members, and the structure lacked legitimacy. The Premier was therefore not obliged to act on the purported request for removal. The appeal was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove that the resolution emanated from the legitimate royal family, and the statutory requirements for removal were not met.

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Removal
• Customary Law
• Legitimacy Of Royal Family
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act

Seleka v Seleka Royal Family and Others (HCAA21/2018)

Seleka v Seleka Royal Family and Others (HCAA21/2018) [2021] ZALMPPHC 28 (28 May 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA21/2018

Judges

GC Muller, MV Semenya, EM Makwela

The Full Court held that the trial court committed a serious procedural irregularity by failing to inform the appellant, who appeared in person, of his right to cross-examine a witness and by excusing the witness without affording the appellant the opportunity to do so. This irregularity prejudiced the appellant and resulted in an unfair trial, violating section 34 of the Constitution. The right to cross-examination is a deeply entrenched procedural right in civil proceedings and is essential to the fairness of the trial. The irregularity was sufficiently serious to vitiate the proceedings, w…

Source excerpt

• Right To Fair Trial
• Cross Examination
• Traditional Leadership Removal
• Locus Standi
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act
• Customary Law Procedure

Maluleke v Hlaneki Traditional Council and Others (2505/2017)

Maluleke v Hlaneki Traditional Council and Others (2505/2017) [2019] ZALMPPHC 48 (15 November 2019)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2505/2017

Judge

Makgoba

The court found that the Premier's recognition of the Third Respondent as senior traditional leader was lawful and in accordance with both the Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act and customary law. The Applicant failed to challenge the original succession decisions for nearly a century and did not follow the prescribed procedures under the Framework Act, including referral to the relevant commissions. The Applicant's complaint was not timeous, lacked merit, and did not constitute a valid dispute under the applicable legislation. The Royal Family that appointed the Third Respondent was the only…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Disputes
• Judicial Review
• Customary Law Succession
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act
• Framework Act
• Functus Officio

Nesengani and Others v Chairperson of the Davhana Royal Council and Others (204/2008)

Nesengani and Others v Chairperson of the Davhana Royal Council and Others (204/2008) [2016] ZALMPTHC 19 (19 September 2016)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

204/2008

Judge

MG Phatudi

The court found that the identification of the Fourth Respondent as Senior Traditional Leader was not performed in accordance with the applicable customary law and legislative framework. The process was flawed because the proper Khadzi was absent from the meeting where the identification occurred, and the Royal Council, rather than the Royal Family, effected the identification. The Premier's recognition of the Fourth Respondent was based on a single notification from the Royal Council, which did not comply with the requirements of the Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act, 2005.…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Judicial Review
• Customary Law Procedure
• Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Certificate Of Recognition