South Africa Case Law

Executive Council of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others v Luthuli and Others (7512/2020P)

Executive Council of the Province of KwaZulu-Natal and Others v Luthuli and Others (7512/2020P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 98 (4 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7512/2020P

Judge

R. Singh

The court found that sections 21(4), 22, 23, and 24(1) of the KwaZulu-Natal Traditional Leadership and Governance Act 5 of 2005 are inconsistent with the Constitution because they fail to provide for the participation or recommendations of the Umndeni Wenkosi (royal family) in the removal of a traditional leader. This omission undermines entrenched constitutional rights under sections 30, 31, 211, and 212, which protect customary law and the role of cultural communities. The impugned sections do not pass the test of reasonableness or rationality and cannot be interpreted in conformity with th…

Source excerpt

• Customary Law Removal Of Traditional Leader
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Role Of Royal Family
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Traditional Leadership Governance

Mafate and Another v Bapo Ba Mogale Traditional Council and Others (M139/2015)

Mafate and Another v Bapo Ba Mogale Traditional Council and Others (M139/2015) [2016] ZANWHC 44 (22 September 2016)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M139/2015

Judge

DJAJE

The High Court set aside the suspension of two traditional council members, finding no lawful power to suspend them under the empowering legislation or by-laws.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Traditional Leadership Governance
• Procedural Fairness
• Administrative-law
• Judicial-review

Masilo NO v Bakubung-ba-Ratheo Traditional Council and Others (1737/2010)

Masilo NO v Bakubung-ba-Ratheo Traditional Council and Others (1737/2010) [2010] ZANWHC 10 (23 September 2010)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

1737/2010

Judge

M M Leeuw

The court found that the applicant, as Administrator, was entitled to receive the information requested from the first and second respondents in terms of his statutory mandate and the court order of 10 June 2010. However, the applicant failed to cooperate by not attending the meeting arranged for disclosure and approached the court prematurely. The respondents had tendered access to the documents, albeit not in the form preferred by the applicant, and there was no substantive evidence that they refused to comply with the court order. The applicant was not entitled to demand information from o…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Governance
• Fiduciary Duties
• Confidentiality And Disclosure
• Urgent Interdict
• Costs Order