Read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]             The appellant appeals an order by this court dated 21 July 2023 (Mashile J sitting, hereinafter referred to as “the court a quo”), dismissing its application for an order compelling specific performance by the first respondent in terms of her obligations as set out in section 20 of the Mpumalanga Traditional Leadership and Governance Act 3 of 2015 (“the Act”); compelling the first respondent to withdraw the certificate of recognition of the third respondent as Inkhosi; to publish a notice in the provincial Gazette with particulars of the removed Inkhosi; and to inform the appellant, the third respondent and the Provincial House of Traditional Leaders of the removal of the third respondent as Inkhosi.

[2]              The appellant purports[1] to be the Ngomane-Lugedane Inner Royal Family (“the royal family”). The royal family was established and is recognised in terms of the Mpumalanga Traditional Leadership and Governance Act 3 of 2005 (“the Act”). The first respondent is the Premier of Mpumalanga Province (“the Premier”). The second respondent is the Mpumalanga Department of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs (“COGTA”). The third respondent is the present Chief (“the Chief”) of the Ngomane-Lugedlane Traditional Community (“the community”).

[3]             The appellant seeks the removal of the Chief. The purpose of the application was for the Premier to act in accordance with her powers in terms of section 20 of the Act[2].

[4]             The Premier opposed the application. COGTA did not oppose the application. Although not opposing the application, the Chief filed a confirmatory affidavit wherein the appellant’s allegations were challenged. In its replying affidavit, the appellant did not deal with the disputes or evidence raised by the Chief in his confirmatory affidavit. Although the appellant’s failure to deal with the allegations made by the Chief in his confirmatory affidavit is not decisive in this appeal, it will demonstrate why the appellant’s interpretation of the provisions of section 20[3] of the Act and more particularly, the powers of the Premier, is wrong.