About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZALMPPHC 44
|
|
Mulamula and Others v Premier of the Province of Limpopo and Others (5948/2018) [2019] ZALMPPHC 44 (6 September 2019)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE)
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTERESTTO OTHER JUDGES: YES/
NO
(3)
REVISED
CASE
NO: 5948/2018
6/9/2019
In
the matter between:
HASANI
THOMAS MULAMULA
FIRST APPLICANT
MULAMULA
ROYAL FAMILY
SECOND APPLICANT
MULAMULA
TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
THIRD APPLICANT
and
PREMIER
OF THE PROVINCE OF LIMPOPO
FIRST RESPONDENT
LIMPOPO
PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE ON TRADITIONAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
LEADERSHIP
DISPUTES AND CLAIMS
MDUNGAZI
JOSEPH MALULEKE
THIRD RESPONDENT
COMMISSION
ON TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP
FOURTH RESPONDENT
DISPUTES
AND CLAIMS
LIMPOPO
PROVINCIAL HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL
FIFTH RESPONDENT
LEADERS
JUDGMENT
MAKGOBA
JP
[1]
The
Applicants brought an application seeking to review and set aside
three related decisions taken in terms of section 26 of the
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003, ("the
Framework Act") namely:
1.1.
a
decision taken on or about 6 September 2017, by the Limpopo
Provincial Committee on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims
("the Committee"), to recommend to the Premier of Limpopo
Province ("the Premier'') that the claim submitted by
the Third
Respondent, Mr Joseph Mdungazi Maluleke "(Mr Maluleke") be
upheld; and
1.2.
two
decisions taken by the Premier:
1.2.1.
on
or about 25 April 2018, to accept Mr Maluleke' s claim; and
1.2.2.
on
or about 11 June 2018 to dissolve the senior traditional leadership
in the lineage of Risimati John Mulamula, thus removing
the
First Applicant from his position as a senior traditional leader.
[2]
The
application primarily seeks to review and set aside
the decision of the Committee to recommend
that Mr
Maluleke' s (Third Respondent's) claim in respect of the First
Applicant's senior traditional leadership position be upheld
, as
well as to review and set aside the Premier's two aforesaid
decisions. It has been brought in terms of Rule 53 of the Uniform
Rules of Court read together with the Promotion of Administrative
Justice Act 3 of 2000 ("PAJA").
[3]
The
application is opposed by the First, Second and Fourth
Respondents. The Third Respondent Mr Maluleke,
who is the subject
matter in the traditional leadership dispute and claim that served
before the Committee did not oppose this
application.
Issues
[4]
There are three main issues to be
determined in this matter:
4.1.
First, whether the Committee acted
lawfully in recommending that Mr Maluleke' s claim in respect of the
First Applicant's senior
traditional position be upheld;
4.2.
Second,
whether the Premier acted lawfully when
4.2.1.
deciding
to accept the Commtitee's recommendation and
4.2.2.
dissolving
the senior traditional leadership in the lineage of Risimati John
Mulamula, and
4.3.
Third,
in the event the impugned decisions are reviewed and set aside, the
nature and extent of the relief to be granted in the
circumstances.
The
Role of Royal Family
[5]
It is significant to explain, from the
onset, the role played by the Royal Family (the Second Applicant in
the present case). In
terms of section 1 of the Framework Act or
section 1 of the Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institution Act 6
of 2005 ("the
Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act") the
"Royal Family" means the core customary institution or
structure consisting
of immediate relatives of the ruling family
within a traditional community who have been identified in
terms of custom, and
includes, where applicable, other family members
who are close relatives of the ruling family.
[6]
The
appointment of a senior traditional leader is regulated by section 11
of the Framework Act (the equivalent thereof is section
12 of the
Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act). It places a duty on the Royal
Family to identify a person who qualifies in terms
of customary law
to assume the position concerned, and to inform the Premier of the
particulars of the person so identified. In
terms of section 11(1)(b)
( or 12(1)(b) of the Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act) the Premier
is obliged ("must") to
recognise the person so identified
and to effect the appointment by notice in a provincial gazette, by
issuing a certificate
of recognition, and by
informing the relevant house of traditional leaders of the
recognition. The only qualification
placed on the Premier to
recognise the person identified, is when there is evidence that the
identification was not done in accordance
with customary law, in
which event the Premier may either refer the matter to the house of
traditional leaders, or refuse to issue
the certificate and refer the
matter back to the royal family for consideration.
[7]
The
aforementioned legal provision will be revisited later in
this judgment when I consider whether the current
senior
traditional leader of the Mulamula Traditional Community who replaced
the First Applicant was lawfully installed as such.
It is common
cause that following the recommendations of the Committee, the
Premier dissolved the senior traditional leadership
of the First
Applicant and purportedly replaced the First Applicant with Mr
Maluleke, the Third Respondent.
[8]
In
the present application the Royal Family is the Second Applicant,
bringing this application as a co-applicant and in support
of the
First Applicant. It remains to be seen whether the same Royal Family
could have played its role in the identification of
Mr Maluleke as a
senior traditional leader and his subsequent recognition and
appointment by the Premier.
Factual Matrix
[9]
It
is common cause between the parties that during 1932 to 1947, Hosi
Jim "Photani" Mkhancani ("Hosi Jim") was
duly
appointed senior traditional leader of the
Mulamula Traditional Community. The dispute
between the parties is only in relation to the person who
took over as traditional leader for the Mulamula Traditional
Community after the death of Hosi Jim.
[10] Hosi Jim died in
1947. Following Hosi Jim's death, the Royal Family designated
Risimati John Mulamula
as Hosi Jim's successor and he was duly
appointed. Risimati John Mulamula is the First Applicant's father.
Risimati John Mulamula's
mother, Xalati, was Hosi Jim's first wife.
The first born son of Xalati was Gezani Johannes Maluleke. The latter
is the father
of the Third Respondent herein, Mdungazi Joseph
Maluleke ("Mr Maluleke").
[11]
In
simple terms the First Applicant's father, Risimati John Mulamula and
the Third Respondent's father, Gezani Johannes Maluleke
were born of
the same mother, being Xalati, the first wife of Hosi Jim.
[12]
The
version of the First Applicant as confirmed in an affidavit by
Mzamani Maxwell Mingagimani, a member of the Second Applicant
(Royal
Family) is that the main reason why the First Applicant's father
(Risimati) and not Mr Maluleke's father, (Gezani), was
designated by
the Royal Family as Hosi Jim's successor was that Mr Maluleke's
father, Gezani, was not Hosi Jim's biological
son and was
only accepted within the Royal Family as an "accommodation"
due to the fact that his mother, Xalati, married
Hosi Jim. That meant
that Mr Maluleke's father had no birth right to inherit the
traditional leadership position from Hosi Jim.
[13]
The illegitimacy of Mr Maluleke's father
was a well-kept family secret for many years and was not disclosed to
younger members of
the Royal Family. It was known only to the elders.
However, at a Royal Family meeting held on 17 October 1996 the eldest
person
at that meeting, Hahani Nwa Photani Tsatsawani Vukeya (better
known as Aunt Hahani) disclosed this family secret. Minutes of the
said meeting were scribed by Mzamani Maxwell Mingayimani, whose
confirmatory affidavit is attached to the First Applicant's founding
affidavit and marked "AnnexureHT10".
According to First Applicant's version Mr
Maluleke's father, Gezani, (being the first born son of Xalati) was
conceived by Xalati
before the latter got married to Hosi Jim.
Aunt Hahani witnessed the First Applicant's
father's (Risimati) designation as senior traditional leader by the
Royal Family in
1948. Aunt Hahani is the sister to both Risimati and
Gezani and the three are born of the same mother, Xalati.
[14]
Another narrative which featured at the
hearing of the Committee (Second Respondent) was that Mr Maluleke's
father (Gezani) was
disinherited from Chieftaincy because he stood
accused of foul play in the mysterious death of his father. This
narrative counters
the well-kept family secret that Mr
Maluleke's father was not a biological son of Hosi Jim. Even if
either of the two narratives
is the real reason for disinheriting Mr
Maluleke's father, Mr Maluleke himself, being the claimant in this
matter, has not
advanced any facts or argument as to why his father
was disinherited. As stated earlier in the judgment this application
is not
being opposed by Mr Maluleke as the Third Respondent.
[15]
I
am inclined to accept it as a fact that the Royal Family took a firm
and unanimous decision in 1948 that Mr Maluleke's father
had no
birth-right to inherit the senior traditional leadership position
from Hosi Jim, and that the First Applicant's
father,
(Risimati) was instead the rightful heir. There is no
evidence before me that
Mr Malulekes'
father objected to the Royal Family decision to designate
the First Applicant's father
as the rightful senior traditional
leader. It is only now after his death that his son, Mr
Maluleke emerges and
contests the senior traditional leadership
position.
[16]
Upon death of the First Applicant's
father (Risimati) the Royal Family held a meeting on 13 September
1977 and decided to designate
the First Applicant as a
successor to his father. This was on the basis that the First
Applicant is Risimati's first-born
son. Wtien this happened, Xalati,
the grandmother of both First Applicant and Mr Maluleke
was still alive and never
objected to the designation of the First
Applicant. The First Applicant was duly appointed as a senior
traditional leader. His
certificate of appointment was issued
on 11 April 1978 with effect from 13 September 1977, being the date
on which the Royal
Family decided on his designation.
[17]
It was only during 1996, approximately
18 years after the First Applicant's appointment, that Mr Maluleke,
who was then 36 years
old started to question the traditional
leadership position of the First Applicant. The dispute was referred
to the then Ralushai
Commission which was established during February
1996 to investigate disputes relating to
irregulariites
and malpractices in the appointment of certain
traditional leaders in the Limpopo Province. It would appear
that this Commission
could not resolve the dispute as it
declined to entertain the claim and advised that the parties should
go and resolve
the issue within the royal family.
[18]
It was close to 16 years later, and when
the First Applicant had been a senior traditional leader for the
Mulamula Traditional Community
for over 30 years, that Mr
Maluleke referred the dispute to the Committee (Second Respondent).
The matter dragged on for
over 4 years in the Committee until 11
April 2017 when the First Applicant received a notification of
a public hearing
to be held on 17 May 2017. The First Applicant
attended the hearing and stated his case. The Royal Family in support
of the First
Applicant submitted their written representations to the
Committee.
[19]
A year later the First Applicant
received a written decision of the Premier which reads as follows:
"Ref' U12104
To:
Khosi Maluleke Hasani Thomas
Mulamula
Traditional Council
P.O.
BOX 1201
MALANULELE
0982
Dear Khosi Maluleke Hasani Thomas
RE: CLAIM I DISPUTE FOR RESTORATION AND I
OR RECOGNITION OF SENIOR TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP OF MULAMULA
TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY BY MR.
MALULEKE MDUNGAZI JOSEPH (ID. NO. [….]
1.
The
above-mentioned matter refers.
2.
I
hereby inform you that the Limpopo Provincial Committee on
Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims has considered your
claim/dispute.
I have considered the findings and recommendations of
the said Committee in terms of provisions of the
Traditional
Leadership and Governance Framework Act No. 41 of 2003
as
amended.
3.
Kindly
be informed that the claim I
dispute for restoration
and I
or recognition of the Mulamula senior traditional leadership by
Maluleke Mdungazi Joseph is accepted.
4.
The
senior traditional leadership in the lineage of Risimati
John is dissolved with immediate effect.
5.
In
case you disagree with the
recommendations, you are advised
to approach the Court of Law for review.
Yours
faithfully
11/06/2018
PREMIER: LIMPOPO
PROVINCE
Date "
[20]
The Committee made
the following findings and recommendations which are the subjects of
review in the present case:
Findings:
1.
The senior traditional leadership is not
in the rightful house as the rightful house is that of Gezani
Johannes Maluleke.
2.
The senior traditional leadership should
go to George Maluleke who is the son of Samuel who is the first born
son of Gezani Maluleke.
Recommendations
1.
It is recommended that the claim by
Maluleke Mdungazi Joseph be upheld.
2.
That the Premier call both the claimant
and the present senior traditional leader Hasani Thomas Maluleke to
agree on a roadmap to
correct the anomaly.
[21]
It is against this factual background
that the Applicants are seeking an order for the review and setting
aside of the findings
and recommendations of the Committee as well as
the decisions of the Premier. Our Courts have recognised that if the
Committee's
role in the decision making process was flawed, the
entire process will be tainted. Accordingly, if this Court were to
hold that
the Committee's decision to recommend that Mr Maluleke's
claim be upheld is reviewed and set aside, the Premier's decision to
uphold
Mr Maluleke's claim must similarly be reviewed and set
aside.
[22]
The above legal principle was
authoritatively set out by the Full Court in the case of
Premier of the Eastern Cape and
Others v Hebe and Others [2017) ZAECBHC 14; [2018)
1 ALL SA 194
(ECB) at para 63 & 64
wherein D
Van Zyl DJP said the following:
"[63] The Premier similarly derives the
power to make
a
decision
on the recommendation from the Framework Act. He or she cannot take
a
binding decision without the
recommendation of the Committee. The Premier can only
act upon
receiving
the Committees'
recommendation.
The
recommendation is accordingly
a
jurisdictional fact and
a
prerequisite for the exercise by the
Premier of his authority
as
contemplated in section 26 of the
Framework Act. The function of the Committee is accordingly an
inherent feature of the process
contemplated in chapter 6.
[64] The purpose of the actions of the
Committee is the determination of
a
claim or the resolution of
a
dispute, the outcome of which is
likely to affect rights and to have a direct external effect.
Although the Premier is empowered
to make
a
decision that differs from the
recommendation of the Committee, he or she is obliged to act on the
recommendation. Section 26(3)
of the Framework Act dictates that
a
decision regarding the recommendation
must be taken within 60 days. That decision is informed and limited
by the nature of the claim
made or the dispute raised, and the
investigation and recommendation of the Committee. While the actions
of the Committee may be
said to only have the "capacity to
affect legal rights" during the course of the investigation,
they impact directly
on the rights of
a
person where the Premier,
as
in the present matter, decides to
accept the recommendation of the Committee. If the Committee's role
in the decision making process
was flawed, the entire
process -will be tainted. The
recommendation and
the decision accordingly
constitute administrative action within the meaning of
PAJA".
[23]
In this case the
facts of the case are such that even if this Court were to dismiss
the application in so far as it applies to the
Committee's impugned
decision, there is still good reason why the Court ought to review
and set aside the Premier's impugned decisions.
This will appear
clearer later in this judgment when I deal with the grounds of
review.
The
Nature of Mr Maluleke's Claim
[24]
It
is important for the purposes of review of the administrators'
decisions to analyse the nature of Mr Maluleke's claim as presented
before the Committee. Did Mr Maluleke lodge the claim for himself or
for own benefit or did he act on behalf of anybody in his
father's
house, that is the house of Gezani Johannes Maluleke? Counsel for the
Applicants argued that Mr Maluleke's claim was understood
to be one
in which he sought for himself a senior traditional leadership
position.
[25]
I
agree and for the following reasons:
25.1.
The Premier's letters to Mr Maluleke and
the First Applicant, informing them of the decisions he had taken,
make it clear that what
was being accepted by the Premier was Mr
Maluleke's claim. So too does the Committee's report which
recommended expressly that
" the
claim by Maluleke Mdungazi Joseph be upheld".
25.2.
In a letter from the Committee dated 10
June 2008 Mr Maluleke was advised:
"The Commission has looked at
your
claim to the position of Senior Traditional Leadership
and has
discovered......) Furthermore in a letter dated 25 May 2012 the
Commission's chairperson advised Mr Maluleke as follows:
"The Commission hereby confirms that it
will attend and finalise
your claim
before expiry of the term
of office mentioned above".
25.3.
In filling out a questionnaire dealing
with the nature of his claim, Mr Maluleke clarified that it was in
respect of a senior traditional
leadership position that he sought
for himself. No claim was advanced on behalf of any particular house.
25.4.
It is common cause that Mr Maluleke is
the son of Gezani Johannes Maluleke's second
wife, meaning he is
from the second house. This much is admitted in
the answering affidavit on behalf of the Premier where it was stated:
"Mr Gezani Johannes Maluleke married
two wives and Mr Mdungazi Joseph Maluleke is the fourth child from
the second wife, i.e
the second house of Mr Gezani Johannes Maluleke"
The other children born to
Gezani Johannes Maluleke's first wife are
Samuel
and Elias. Both have passed away but as at the time the claim was
lodged, George, the son of Samuel was alive. Despite that
state of
affairs, Mr Maluleke's claim had, as its goal, to have himself
replace the First Applicant as the senior traditional leader.
[26]
For the reasons stated above, Mr
Maluleke had no capacity to lodge the claim for himself. George could
have been the person to lodge
the claim for himself if he believed
that he was the rightful heir to the throne. In my view the Committee
erred in making a recommendaiton
that Mr Maluleke lodged the claim on
behalf of the other house of Gezani Johannes Maluleke.
The Grounds of Review: The Committee's
Decision
[27] The
Committee was required to investigate
and make
recommendation on the claim as submitted
by Mr Maluleke. The Committee had no mandate to go any further. Once
it had established
that Mr Malulekeis not the rightful heir to Gezani
Johannes Maluleke, given the existence of male heirs to the latter's
first born
son of his first wife, the claim ought simply to have been
dismissed. The Committee thus erred in making a finding that Mr
Maluleke
had lodged a claim on behalf of the first house of Gezani.
In the result, the Committee's recommendations
fall to be reviewed and set aside in terms of the following
provisions of PAJA:
(1)
Section
6(2)(a)(i), in that the
Committee was not authorised
by
the empowering provision to make the recommendation it did, and
(2)
Section 6(2)(d), in that the Committee's
recommendations were materially influenced by an error of law
regarding the nature and
extent of its powers to investigate and make
recommendations.
[28] The claim by Mr
Maluleke was a personal one. He sought the removal of the First
Applicant from his
traditional leadership position so as to make way
for himself to be appointed to that position. But as the evidence
shows, he is
not eligible for appointment regard being had to the
history relating to the appointment of the First Applicant 's father
as the
senior traditional leader.
[29] In my view Mr
Maluleke had no standing to lodge the type of claim that he did. The
Committee had no
lawful basis to uphold Mr Maluleke's claim. Before
the amendment of the Framework Act the Committee was authorized to
also investigate
of its own accord disputes and claims concerning
traditional leadership. The present position is that the Committee
now derives
its authority to investigate and recommend
from the lodgment of a dispute or a claim. See:
Premier of the
Eastern Cape v Hebe, supra, at para 32.
[30] The
Committee failed to consider customary law. Evidence was placed
before the Committee
that Mr Maluleke's father was not the
biological son of Hosi Jim and therefore did not qualify to
take over the position
of senior traditional leader from Hosi Jim. No
contrary evidence was placed by Mr Maluleke. Even up to this
stage this allegation
has not been denied as Mr Maluleke does not
oppose the present application. Section
25(3)(a)
of the Framework Act provides that:
"When considering
a
dispute or claim, the Commission must
consider and apply customary law and the .customs of the relevant
traditional community as
they applied when the events occurred that
gave rise to the dispute or claim" .
In the circumstances Mr Maluleke's claim had to
be rejected because he did not, and still does not,
qualify for the
position of a senior traditional leader in terms of
customary law.
The Committee's decision therefore falls to be
reviewed and set aside in terms of section 6(2)(d) in that their
action was materially
influenced by an error of law.
The Grounds of Review: The Premier's
Decisions
[31]
The Premier's decisions were made after
the Premier had considered the recommendation of the Committee that
Mr Maluleke's claim
be accepted. It follows accordingly that once the
recommendations of the Committee are reviewed and set aside, the
Premier's decisions
must also fall as a result.
Our Courts have recognised that if the
Committee's role in the decision making process was flawed, the
entire process will be tainted
-
Premier of the Eastern Cape v
Hebe at para 63.
Accordingly, the Premier's decision to accept
Mr Maluleke's claim, being based on the Committee's recommendation
that his claim
be upheld, must similarly be reviewed and set aside.
[32]
The
Premier failed to provide reasons for his impugned decisions despite
being requested by the Applicants and / or Applicants'
attorneys to
do so over two months. He has adopted the attitude that if the
Applicants do not agree with his decisions and / or
the
recommendations of the Committee, they should approach the Court of
law. Accordingly , in terms of section 5(3) of PAJA it
must be
presumed that the Premier took the impugned decisions for no good
reason.
[33]
In
JH v
Health Professions Council of South Africa and Others
2016 (2) SA 93
(WCC)
Rogers J said at para 15:
"Generally speaking,
action taken 'without good reason' would infringe the constitutional
requirement of rationality (cf s
6(2)(i)), would be arbitrary and
capricious (s 6(2)(e)(vi) and would be
so
unreasonable that no
reasonable administrator could have
so
acted
(s
6(2)(h)). There may
be overlap with other grounds of review as well but the onus does not
automatically shift in respect of all
grounds of review".
In the circumstances the Premier's impugned
decisions fall to be reviewed and set aside in terms of section
6(2)(c), 6(2)(e), 6(2)f)(ii)
and 6(2)(i) of PAJA, alternatively, the
principle of legality.
[34]
Arising from the findings and
recommendations of the Committee and the subsequent acceptance and
implementation of such recommendations
by the Premier, Mr Maluleke
has been appointed and presently occupies the position of an acting
senior traditional leader of Mulamula
Traditional Community. with
effect from 13 January 2019. Such approval and
I
or appointment of Mr Maluleke as
acting senior traditional leader has been made without the
consultation and approval of the Royal
Family, the Second Applicant
herein. It is quite clear that the claim lodged by Mr Maluleke was
indeed for his personal benefit
and not for the first house of
Gezani as recommended by the Committee.
[35]
The recognition and removal of a senior
traditional leader is regulated by sections 11 and 12 respectively of
the Framework Act
or sections 12 and 13 respectively of the Limpopo
Traditional Leadership Act. In both instances the Royal Family plays
a pivotal
role and, subject to the relevant laws, has the prerogative
to appoint and remove senior traditional leaders. In this case the
Royal Family (Second Applicant) has not been consulted and an acting
leader whose appointment flouts customary law has been imposed
on it
after the dissolution of the First Applicant's senior traditional
leadership.
There is no basis for the Committee and the
Premier to usurp the functions and prerogatives of the Royal
Family and
to themselves recommend and appoint Mr
Maluleke against the wishes of the Royal Family and the dictates of
customary
law.
Appropriate Relief
[36]
Having reviewed and set aside the
decisions of both the Committee and the Premier, what remains is to
determine an appropriate remedy.
In terms of section 172(1)(a) of the
Constitution, when a Court considers remedy, the starting point, as a
matter of constitutional
principles, is that invalid administrative
decisions must be declared unlawful.
Following a declaration of invalidity, the
consequences must be dealt with in a just and equitable order under
section 172(1)(b)
of the Constitution. The default position in this
regard is that the just and equitable relief granted must be aimed at
correcting
or reversing the consequences of an invalid administrative
action.
[37]
In
AllPay
Consolidated Investment Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Chief
Executive Officer of the South African Social Security Agency
and
Others (No 2) 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC) at para 30
it
was held that
"Logic, general legal principle, the
Constitution, and the binding authority of this Court all point to
a
default position that requires the
consequences of invalidity to be corrected or reversed where they can
no longer be prevented.
It is an approach that accords with the rule
of law and principle of legality".
Having found that the
administrative actions of the Committee and the Premier are
constitutionally invalid, I am constrained to
grant appropriate
relief that is corrective of the consequences of the unlawfulness
found.
Order
[38]
The following order is
accordingly granted:
1.
The
findings and recommendations of the Committee (Second
Respondent) are reviewed and set aside.
1.1.
The
recommendations of the Committee are substituted with the following
recommendation:
"It is recommended that the claim by
Maluleke Mdungazi Joseph be rejected.
"
2.
The
Premier's decisions to accept Mr Maluleke's claim and to dissolve the
senior traditional leadership in the lineage of Risimati
John
Mulamula is reviewed and set aside.
2.1.
By
operation of law the First Applicant reverts to his position as
senior traditional leader of the Mulamula Traditional Community.
3.
The
matter is remitted to the Premier to make a decision in line with
paragraph 2.1 above in terms of section 26(3) of the Framework
Act
within 30 days from date of this order.
4.
The
Premier and all those who opposed the application are ordered to pay
the costs of this application.
EM MAKGOBA
JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE
HIGH COURT, LIMPOPO
DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES
Heard
on
26 August 2019
Judgment
delivered on
6 September 2019
For
the Applicants
Adv. J M Berger
Instructed
Niland & Pretorius Inc
For
the 1
st
, 2
nd
& 4
th
Respondents Adv. T L
Mahasha
Instructed
by
: State Attorney