South Africa Case Law

Ratau and Others v Premier Limpopo Province and Others (12970/2022)

Ratau and Others v Premier Limpopo Province and Others (12970/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 130 (30 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

12970/2022

Judge

Bresler

The Court found that the Applicants failed to properly identify a cause of action under PAJA, as they did not specify which provisions of the Act were relied upon and did not establish that the Premier had a duty or power to self-review its decision upon receipt of new facts. The principle of legality was held not to apply, as PAJA governs the review of administrative action in this context. The delay of approximately seven years in instituting review proceedings was found to be unreasonable and fatal to the application, with no sufficient explanation provided. In the absence of any prospect…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Delay In Review
• Principle Of Legality
• Traditional Leadership Recognition

Baroka Ba Nkwana Royal Family and Others v Premier, Limpopo N.O and Others (6634/2024)

Baroka Ba Nkwana Royal Family and Others v Premier, Limpopo N.O and Others (6634/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 113 (10 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

6634/2024

Judge

M.I. Mangena

The High Court dismissed an urgent bid to suspend recognition of a senior traditional leader, finding no basis for interim interdict relief pending review.

• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Interim Interdict
• Customary Law Succession
• Gender Equality
• Administrative Action Review
• Interim-interdict

Pilane and Others v Premier of the North West Province and Others (M539/2019 ; UM239/2022)

Pilane and Others v Premier of the North West Province and Others (M539/2019 ; UM239/2022) [2025] ZANWHC 52 (12 March 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M539/2019 ; UM239/2022

Judge

A Reddy

The court found that the Commission of Inquiry failed to quorate and did not provide a complete record of its proceedings, undermining the reliability and lawfulness of its findings and recommendations. The Premier, in accepting and approving the Commission's recommendations, failed to provide adequate reasons for his administrative decisions, violating the requirements of PAJA and the constitutional principle of legality. The Premier's statutory powers are limited to recognition of traditional leaders designated by the Royal Family, not designation, and the process followed excluded affected…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Customary Law Review
• Quorum Of Commissions
• Failure To Provide Reasons
• Principle Of Legality

Gwebindlala v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (194/2016)

Gwebindlala v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (194/2016) [2024] ZAECMHC 90; [2024] 4 All SA 810 (ECM) (5 September 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

194/2016

Judge

Noncembu

The court dismissed a review challenging the refusal to recognise AmaBomvana as a principal traditional community, holding the MEC acted under valid delegation and the jurisdictional requirements were not met.

• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Ultra Vires
• Jurisdictional Requirements
• Delay In Review
• Misjoinder
• Interpretation Of Statutes

Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba Ka Bhekuzulu and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (17018/2023P)

Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba Ka Bhekuzulu and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (17018/2023P) [2024] ZAKZPHC 47 (13 June 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

17018/2023P

Judge

Olsen

The High Court dismissed an urgent Part A application seeking interim interdicts over Ingonyama Trust funds and provincial funding linked to King Misuzulu’s status.

• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Ingonyama Trust Act
• Interim Interdict
• Public Funds Misappropriation
• Locus Standi
• Customary Law

Bakgatla Ba Mocha Ba Phopolo Traditional Community (Of Mmametlhake) and Another v Premier: Mpumalanga Province and Others (A255/2022)

Bakgatla Ba Mocha Ba Phopolo Traditional Community (Of Mmametlhake) and Another v Premier: Mpumalanga Province and Others (A255/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 491 (24 May 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A255/2022

Judges

Mahosi, N. Davis, E van Der Schyff

The appeal succeeded because the failure to join the Bakgatla Ba Mmakau Community and Royal Family, who have a direct and substantial interest in the recognition of a traditional community and leader, was fatal to the appellants' application. The court a quo erred in proceeding to determine the merits without these parties. The proper course was to uphold the point in limine and afford the appellants an opportunity to remedy the non-joinder. The order of the court a quo was set aside, and the appellants were granted leave to join the necessary parties within 20 days. Costs were awarded to the…

Source excerpt

• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Non Joinder
• Customary Law
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Land Restitution

Mkono and Another v MEC for Co-operative Governane and Traditional Affairs Eastern Cape and Others (3603/2021)

Mkono and Another v MEC for Co-operative Governane and Traditional Affairs Eastern Cape and Others (3603/2021) [2024] ZAECMHC 22 (30 April 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3603/2021

Judge

Cengani-Mbakaza

Review of a headmanship succession decision dismissed. The court held the MEC acted lawfully under delegated powers and the process was procedurally fair.

• Judicial Review
• Customary Law Succession
• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Procedural Fairness
• Delegation Of Powers
• Judicial-review

Rikhotso and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (346/2021)

Rikhotso and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (346/2021) [2023] ZALMPTHC 19 (7 December 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou

Case number

346/2021

Judge

M S Monene

The court found that the Premier had provided the applicants with the reasons for declining their recognition application through several letters, each stating that the decision was based on the recommendations of the Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership and Disputes. The applicants had received both the letters and the relevant report, which constituted more than the gist of the reasons required by law. The court held that the applicants were not entitled to compel the provision of reasons already in their possession. The late filing of the respondents' answering affidavit was cond…

Source excerpt

• Compel Reasons
• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Section 33 Constitution
• Paja Obligations

Thato Kholofelo Matsaung N.O and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (7879/2019)

Thato Kholofelo Matsaung N.O and Another v Premier of Limpopo Province and Others (7879/2019) [2023] ZALMPPHC 70 (11 August 2023)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7879/2019

Judge

M V Semenya

The court found that the Premier's failure to comply with the prior order and statutory obligations under the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act and PAJA constituted unlawful administrative inaction. The applicants demonstrated direct and substantial interest, establishing locus standi. Exceptional circumstances existed, including prolonged delay, disregard for the rule of law, and continued prejudice to the applicants and community. The court held that remitting the matter to the Premier would result in further delay and that a substitution order recognising the first applic…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Traditional Leadership Recognition
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Inaction
• Locus Standi
• Substitution Order

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