South Africa Case Law

Mothapo Royal Council and Others v Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (92/2025)

Mothapo Royal Council and Others v Polokwane Local Municipality and Others (92/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 22 (14 February 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

92/2025

Judge

Makoti

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the interdictory relief sought. The Mothapo Royal Council is not a statutory administrative body and lacks lawful authority to issue letters for spaza shop permits. The Council, similarly, is not lawfully constituted under applicable legislation, and neither body can claim administrative powers. The affected spaza shop owners have no standing to dictate which letters the Municipality should accept. The leadership dispute within the traditional community remains unresolved, and the absence of a recognised council or senio…

Source excerpt

• Interdictory Relief
• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Rule Of Law
• Urgent Application
• Standing
• Customary Law Authority

Mkono and Another v MEC for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Eastern Cape and Others (Leave to Appeal) (3603/2021)

Mkono and Another v MEC for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs Eastern Cape and Others (Leave to Appeal) (3603/2021) [2025] ZAECMHC 6 (11 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3603/2021

Judge

N Cengani-Mbakaza

The High Court granted leave to appeal in a traditional leadership dispute, finding a real question whether a panel exceeded the scope of a consent order.

• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Panel Investigation
• Scope Of Consent Order
• Leave To Appeal
• Customary Law Succession
• Leave-to-appeal

Mogale and Another v Premier, North West Province and Another (M485/20)

Mogale and Another v Premier, North West Province and Another (M485/20) [2024] ZANWHC 169 (3 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M485/20

Judge

Petersen

The court held that the applicants, having withdrawn the application after inviting the respondents to answer the case set out in the founding papers, are liable for the costs incurred by the respondents. The applicants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for signing affidavits that allegedly did not reflect their instructions, and their attempt to rely on the Biowatch principle was rejected as inapplicable. The general rule that a withdrawing party pays costs applies, and no exceptional circumstances were present to justify a departure. The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of…

Source excerpt

• Withdrawal Of Application
• Costs Award
• Commission Of Inquiry
• Traditional Leadership Dispute

Sithelo and Another v Premier of the Eastern Cape Province and Others (2607/2022)

Sithelo and Another v Premier of the Eastern Cape Province and Others (2607/2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 17 (9 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2607/2022

Judge

Notyesi

The High Court dismissed a delayed review over a traditional leadership dispute, finding the explanation for delay inadequate and the matter res judicata.

• Condonation
• Undue Delay
• Res Judicata
• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Res-judicata

Chaba and Another v Ga-Seema Community and Another (6904/2020)

Chaba and Another v Ga-Seema Community and Another (6904/2020) [2024] ZALMPPHC 23 (8 March 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

6904/2020

Judge

M.G. Phatudi

The court granted condonation and rescinded a default order, finding the applicants showed material non-disclosure and a valid basis for Rule 42(1)(a) relief.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Default Judgment
• Material Non Disclosure
• Rescission-of-judgment

Mditshwa v Sabona and Others (4744/2022)

Mditshwa v Sabona and Others (4744/2022) [2022] ZAECMHC 53 (8 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4744/2022

Judge

NQUMSE

The court found that the previous application was struck off the roll and not technically pending, thus lis pendens did not bar the present application. On contempt, the court held that the first respondent was aware of the order but the applicant failed to provide convincing evidence that the respondents disobeyed the order. The ceremony in question was not proven to be a coronation or installation as traditional leader, and there was insufficient evidence of non-compliance with the order. The applicant did not meet the requirements for contempt of court. The application was dismissed with c…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Lis Pendens
• Interim Interdict
• Traditional Leadership Dispute

Radingwana and Another v Premier: Limpopo Province and Others (Rev 4849/2020)

Radingwana and Another v Premier: Limpopo Province and Others (Rev 4849/2020) [2022] ZALMPPHC 49 (4 October 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

Rev 4849/2020

Judge

Muller

The court found that the Kgatla Commission failed to properly investigate the dispute regarding the succession of the senior traditional leader of the Baroka Ba Radingwana community. The Commission did not call key witnesses, admitted evidence not given under oath, and treated the claimants as adversaries rather than conducting a thorough inquiry. The Premier's decision to accept the Commission's recommendation was therefore unlawful and procedurally unfair. The court held that the identification of a senior traditional leader must be performed by the royal family in accordance with custom an…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Customary Law Of Succession
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Principle Of Legality
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Zulu v Mathe and Others (2751/2021P 2752/2021P)

Zulu v Mathe and Others (2751/2021P 2752/2021P) [2022] ZAKZPHC 6 (2 February 2022)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

2751/2021P; 2752/2021P; 10879/2021P

Judge

Madondo AJP

The High Court dismissed a wife’s declaratory claim and a coronation challenge, but suspended execution of King Goodwill Zwelithini’s will pending trial.

• Declaratory Relief
• Customary Law Succession
• Will Authenticity
• Marital Property Regime
• Interdictory Relief
• Traditional Leadership Dispute

Sithelo Royal Family and Another v Premier of Eastern Cape and Others (2779/2020)

Sithelo Royal Family and Another v Premier of Eastern Cape and Others (2779/2020) [2021] ZAECMHC 28 (17 August 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

2779/2020

Judge

M.S. Jolwana

The application for judicial review was instituted well outside the 180-day period prescribed by section 7(1) of PAJA, as the applicants were aware of the refusal to recognise the second applicant as headman by at least 18 May 2018. The applicants failed to apply for condonation or extension of time, and their reliance on withdrawn proceedings does not interrupt the statutory time period. The applicants did not meaningfully engage with the administrative decisions communicated to them, nor did they challenge the appointment of Thozamile Sithelo as acting headman. In the absence of a proper ch…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review Delay
• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Condonation
• Costs Order

Tshibvumo Royal Family and Another v Rambuda and Others (801/2018)

Tshibvumo Royal Family and Another v Rambuda and Others (801/2018) [2020] ZALMPTHC 9 (29 October 2020)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

801/2018

Judge

Kganyago

The court reviewed and set aside the Premier’s recognition of a headman, finding section 12 procedures were not properly followed in a succession dispute.

• Traditional Leadership Dispute
• Customary Law Succession
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Internal Remedies Exhaustion
• Traditional-leadership-dispute
• Customary-law-succession