About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Supreme Court of Appeal
>>
2020
>>
[2020] ZASCA 179
|
|
Yende and Another v Yende and Another (1128/19) [2020] ZASCA 179 (18 December 2020)
THE
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
Not Reportable
Case
no: 1128/19
In
the matter between:
THEMBA
YENDE FIRST
APPELLANT
AMAYENDE ASOGENYANENI TRADITIONAL
COUNCIL SECOND
APPELLANT
and
FELANI
YENDE FIRST
RESPONDENT
AMAYENDE ASOGENYANENI ROYAL
FAMILY SECOND
RESPONDENT
Neutral
citation:
Themba Yende and Another v
Felani Yende and Another
(1128/19)
[2020] ZASCA 179
(18 December 2020)
Coram:
PETSE DP and MBHA, ZONDI, MOCUMIE and MOLEMELA JJA
Heard
:
12 November 2020
Delivered
:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties' representatives via email, publication on the Supreme
Court
of Appeal website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 10h00am on 18 December 2020.
Summary:
Customary Law – recognition and
appointment of traditional leader –whether provisions of the
Traditional Leadership
and Governance Framework Act were complied
with – whether the living amaYende customary law was proven to
the Commission.
ORDER
On
appeal from:
Gauteng Division of the
High Court, Pretoria (Strijdom AJ, Sethosa-Molopa and Potterill JJ
concurring, sitting as a court of appeal):
judgment reported
sub
nom
[2019] ZAGPPHC 237.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
Molemela JA (Petse DP and Mbha,
Zondi and Mocumie JJA concurring)
[1]
This
appeal concerns the application of customary norms and criteria of
the traditional community known as the amaYende asoGenyaneni
(amaYende) the rightful senior traditional leader
[1]
of that community.
[2]
On 23
October 2012,
[2]
the Premier of Mpumalanga (the Premier), in his official capacity as
the person responsible for making the administrative decision
challenged, approved the recognition of amaYende as a traditional
community and recognised the fourth appellant, Mr Themba Yende
(Themba) as the senior traditional leader of that community. The
Premier’s notice stipulated that the recognition was pursuant
to the recommendation of the third appellant, the Commission on
Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims: Mpumalanga, (the
Commission)
as contemplated in the provisions of the Traditional
Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 (the Framework
Act).
[3]
Having learnt about Themba’s
recognition as the senior traditional leader of the amaYende, Mr
Felani Yende (Felani) and his
two siblings Ntombikayise and
Sibongile, (together referred to as the respondents) brought an
application for review to the Gauteng
Division of the High Court,
Pretoria, challenging the Premier’s decision to recognise
Themba as the senior traditional leader.
Asserting that the Premier’s
decision to recognise Themba was not in compliance with customary
laws and practices of amaZulu,
the respondents sought an order
reviewing and setting aside the decision on the basis that it was
unlawful. The review was grounded
on
s 6
of the
Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
. The matter came before Manamela
AJ, who dismissed the application with costs. The basis for
dismissing the matter was that the
respondents had been aware of the
process underway at the Commission whose sole purpose was to
determine the rightful senior traditional
leader of amaYende but had
not lodged any claim nor made any representations in that regard.
Instead, they had belatedly taken
steps after the publication of the
Government Gazette recognising Themba as the senior leader of
amaYende.
[4]
Aggrieved by that decision, the respondents obtained leave of this
court to appeal to the Full Court of the Gauteng Division
of the High
Court, Pretoria (full court
)
after Manamela AJ had refused leave.
On appeal, the full court reversed the decision of Manamela AJ on the
basis that the respondents
had not been afforded an opportunity to
make representations, thus tainting the procedures followed by the
Commission. As regards
substance, the full court held that the
appellants had not adduced evidence showing the existence of any
“living” customs
that were different from the ordinary
customs of amaZulu. The Full Court set aside the Premier’s
decision recognising Themba
as senior traditional leader and directed
the Commission to constitute and hold a meeting of the Royal Family
within 15 days.
[5]
For a better understanding of the context, it is prudent to preface
the background facts of this matter with a brief outline
of the
salient statutory provisions that are applicable. Section 211(1) of
the Constitution
[3]
gives recognition to the institution, status and role of traditional
leadership.
Section
211(3)
enjoins the courts to apply customary law when that law is
applicable, subject to constitutional values.
[4]
[6] Section 11(1) of the Framework Act
provides for recognition of, among others, senior traditional leaders
and reads as follows:
‘
11.
(1) Whenever the position of senior traditional leader, headman or
headwoman is to be filled-
(a)
the royal
family concerned must, within a reasonable time after the need arises
for any of those positions to be filled, and with
due regard to
applicable customary law- (i) identify a person who qualifies in
terms of customary law to assume the position in
question, after
taking into account whether any of the grounds referred to in section
12(1)
(a)
,
(b)
and
(d)
apply to that person; and (ii) through the relevant customary
structure, inform the Premier of the province concerned of the
particulars
of the person so identified to fill the position and of
the reasons for the identification of that person; and
(b)
the Premier concerned must, subject to subsection (3), recognise the
person so identified by the royal family in accordance with
provincial legislation as senior traditional leader, headman or
headwoman, as the case may be.’
[7]
Section 22(1) of the Framework Act established the
Commission
on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims as a specially
constituted body with authority to decide on any traditional
leadership disputes and claims contemplated in s 25(2) of the
Framework Act.
[5]
Section 22(2) in turn enjoins the Commission to execute its functions
in
a manner that is fair, objective and impartial.
Section
25(2)
(a)
,
inter alia, empowers the Commission to, upon request or of its own
accord, decide any traditional dispute or claim in instances
where
the title or right of the incumbent to a traditional leadership
position was contested. In terms of s 25(2)
(b)
,
a
dispute or claim may be lodged by any person and must be accompanied
by information setting out the nature of the dispute or claim
and any
other relevant information.
[8]
I turn now to the facts that serve as the backdrop to the
adjudication of this appeal. It is common cause that Felani and
Themba
are half-brothers, having been fathered by the late chief
Leonard Yende (the late chief Yende), who was the last living senior
traditional leader of amaYende. Themba was born from a relationship
between the late chief Yende and Themba’s mother, Ms Hadebe.
It
is common cause that the late chief Yende did not marry Themba
Yende’s mother and that Themba was raised by his maternal
family. Themba assumed his mother’s surname, Hadebe, and only
assumed that of his father (Yende) after the latter’s
death in
1997. After Themba’s birth, the late chief Yende paid lobola
for Ms Maria Mnisi (MaMnisi) and they entered into
a customary law
union.
[6]
Felani and his two siblings were born from that customary marriage.
It is common cause that before he died in 1997, the late chief
Yende
did not officially assume his rightful position as a senior
traditional leader of the amaYende and instead worked as a farm
labourer. The traditional affairs were handled by one Sidumo. The
latter aspect need not detain us any further, as Sidumo did not
feature in the litigation that led to this appeal.
[9]
It is common cause that Themba lodged the claims for the recognition
of the amaYende as a traditional community and for his
recognition as
its senior traditional leader in or about 2007. It is also undisputed
that on 31 August 2010, a relative by the
name of Mr Mbulali Joseph
Yende (Mbulali) lodged a competing claim alleging that he was the
rightful heir to be recognised as that
community’s senior
traditional leader. Both claims were referred to the Commission for
investigation and recommendation as
contemplated in s 25(2) of the
Framework Act. It is common cause that Themba was, on the
recommendation of the Commission, ultimately
recognised as the senior
traditional leader of the amaYende. What was seriously contested in
this matter is whether Felani also
lodged a claim for recognition as
the rightful traditional leader of that traditional community.
[10]
The crisp issues for determination before this court are: (i) whether
the relevant Royal Family had been afforded the right
to make
representations to the Commission; (ii) whether the provisions of the
Framework Act were complied with; and (iii) whether
the living
amaYende customary law was proven to the Commission.
[11] In
Mphephu
v Mphephu-Ramabulana and Others
,
[7]
this Court
held that it is the members of the Royal Family alone that must
identify the senior traditional leader as contemplated
in s 11 of the
Framework Act.
In
Bapedi
Marota Mamone v Commission of Traditional Leadership Disputes and
Claims and Others
(
Mamone
)
,
[8]
the Constitutional Court, interpreting s 11 of the Framework Act,
held that there are
two
crucial elements that attach to a proper recognition process: first,
the nomination or identification should be done by the
Royal Family
and, second, the said nomination and recognition must be made after
applying and taking into consideration the relevant
customary laws
and customs of the said traditional community. Although deference is
bestowed on the Commission as a s
pecialist
body constituted by experts who are knowledgeable regarding customs
and the institution of traditional leadership
,
[9]
if the Commission or the relevant administrator fails on the
legislative test enunciated in s 11 of the Framework Act, its
decision
must be set aside.
[12]
In their founding affidavit in support of the review application, the
respondents averred that they had objected to the nomination
of
Themba as the senior traditional leader of the amaYende at a public
meeting held at the Town Hall of Piet Retief in 2012 with
the
representatives of the Department of Co-operative Governance and
Traditional Affairs or the Commission. They contended that
they were
informed that another meeting would be convened and that they would
in due course be notified about the date thereof.
Attached to the
respondents’ founding affidavit is a letter addressed to the
Premier following the publishing of a public
notice recognising
Themba as the senior Traditional Leader of the amaYende. In that
letter, reference is made to the public meeting
which the respondents
had attended and to the respondents having categorically refused to
agree to Themba’s nomination. Also
attached to the respondents’
founding affidavits were affidavits signed by several people who
asserted that in terms of the
living customary practices and
traditions of the amaYende pertaining to succession, Felani was the
heir to the late Chief Yende’s
throne by dint of being the
first-born son from the Great Wife, MaMnisi.
[13]
The minutes of that public meeting do not form part of the record
filed
in
the proceedings of the review application. Of significance is that
the deponent who filed an answering affidavit on behalf of the
Premier, the MEC and the Commission did not dispute the occurrence of
this meeting nor the respondents’ recordal or their
objection
to Themba’s nomination as the senior traditional leader of
amaYende. Against that background, there is no basis
for not
accepting the respondents’ version that they did in fact object
to Themba’s nomination. The report of the Commission
does not
show that the respondents’ protestations were taken into
account. Neither did the Premier state that any views expressed
by
the respondents were taken into account when he
approved Themba’s recognition
as the senior traditional leader.
[14]
As mentioned earlier, s 22(2) of the Framework Act stipulates that
the Commission must carry out its functions in a manner
that is fair,
objective and impartial. It is not disputed that the late Chief
Yende’s biological children constituted the
core members of the
Royal Family. It appears from the record of the claim hearing that
not only were the respondents absent from
the amaYende Royal Family
Leadership Dispute Claim Hearing (the claim hearing) but that their
absence was a serious concern for
the Commission. This unquestionably
attests to the fact that the respondents were indeed considered to be
important members of
the Royal Family, who should have been afforded
an opportunity to play a pivotal role in the identification,
recognition and ultimate
appointment of the senior traditional
leader.
[10]
[15] The transcript of the claim
hearing reveals that two speakers (presumably the officials) were
concerned about the absence of
the respondents from the proceedings,
pointing out that the possibility of the latter showing up later to
dispute Themba’s
claim had to be avoided. The first exchange
was as follows:
‘
Q:
I hear you are saying there are two boys and two girls, is there any
of your siblings in the house today; I would like to ask
[a] few
things?
A:
Sadly he is not here but working though at some meetings; he would
likely to accompany us together with my sisters.’
The second exchange was as follows:
‘
Q:
I am worried about one thing and that your siblings are not here to
support you in your aim [presumably claim], what evidence
do we have
that they support you, we don’t want that situation where
tomorrow they come and dispute your claim and think
that your brother
should be chief because your claim is quite big and if they knew they
would have excused themselves from work
to come and support you. So
you are saying their jobs are more important than all of this, I
can’t understand…’
A:
Answering your first question, regarding Themba’s siblings,
[they] were not informed by myself and that was “an error”
on my side because Themba had asked to inform them, but I had thought
since this was going to be [a] community hearing, I should
not bother
them, and thinking it might not be a great deal if they missed just
this one meeting.’
[16]
The afore-mentioned exchanges make it clear that the absence of the
respondents was on account of not having been invited to
the claim
hearing. It, therefore, cannot be gainsaid that the respondents were
not afforded an opportunity to make any further
representations after
they had registered their discontent with Themba’s nomination.
They were thus excluded from participation
in a matter that
materially affected the Royal Family of the amaYende. These exchanges
also cast serious doubt on Themba’s
assertion that he was
unanimously nominated as the representative of the Royal Family of
amaYende.
[17]
To that extent, the purported nomination of Themba as the senior
traditional leader in the absence of other members of the
Royal
Family was fatally defective and constituted an irregularity. It is
trite that denying a party who has an interest in a matter
the right
of meaningful participation in a hearing renders the proceedings in
question procedurally unfair. The respondents’
exclusion from
meaningful participation in the processes of the Commission clearly
violated the provisions of s 22(2) of the Framework
Act. Thus, the
full court correctly found that the audi alteram partem principle was
not observed and that this rendered the claim
hearing procedurally
unfair.
[18]
It is well-established that customary law is, by its nature, a
constantly evolving system.
[11]
Equally trite is that customary law exists not only in the official
version documented in legislation and by writers, but there
is also
‘living’ customary law, which denotes law that is
actually observed by African communities.
[12]
The Constitutional Court, in
Shilubana
,
[13]
had occasion to decide a dispute in terms of which the traditional
leadership was contested based on customary law of succession.
That
court aptly stated as follows:
‘
It
follows that the practice of a particular community is relevant when
determining the content of a customary law norm. As this
court held
in
Richtersveld
,
[14]
the content of customary law must be determined with reference to
both the history and the usage of the community concerned. “Living”
customary law is not always easy to establish and it may sometimes
not be possible to determine a new position with clarity.
However,
where there is a dispute over the law of a community, parties should
strive to place evidence of the present practice of
that community
before the courts, and courts have a duty to examine the law in the
context of a community and to acknowledge developments
if they have
occurred
.’
[15]
(Emphasis
added.)
[19]
It is evident from the record that Themba and Mbulali gave parallel
versions on the living customs of the amaYende. It is unclear
why the
Commission ultimately decided to accept the customary practices
contended for by Themba when there was no other evidence
supporting
his version on this aspect. The failure to call for and consider
evidence of the customary practices of the amaYende
applicable at the
time of the determination of the dispute violated the provision of s
25(3) of the Framework Act.
[20]
The statement in the Commission’s report, that amaYende are of
Zulu origin and observe Zulu traditions and customs was
not
controverted. T
he
customary law and practices of the Zulu nation as espoused in the
Natal Code of Zulu
Law
[16]
and many
other authorities is that in homesteads that are polygamous, multiple
house units are created by each marriage of the family
head. The
Indlunkulu (Great House) is an indispensable centre of the Zulu
household. The Great House is established by the first
wife. It is
from that house that other houses take their position. The Great
House may be supported by affiliated houses on the
right and on the
left (iQadi and iKhohlo, respectively). From it, derives the heir to
the throne, if the family head is a chief.
It follows that MaMnisi,
being the first wife of the late chief Yende, constituted the Great
Wife, and her household the Great
House.
[21]
A Royal Family, as defined in s 1 of the Framework Act is ‘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’. By virtue of being the late Chief’s
biological son, Themba unquestionably falls within the definition of
the Royal Family. However, the respondents are, as the Full
Court
correctly found, the core members of the Royal Family and have a say
in the identification of a senior traditional leader
who should step
into their father’s shoes.
[22]
The full court was correct when it found that on the facts, the
respondents are the ‘relevant and proper components’
of
the Royal Family. It did not, by so saying, find that they are the
only relevant decision makers, nor did it deny Themba’s
status
as a member of the Royal Family, as the biological son of the late
Chief Yende. To the extent that the appellants suggest
that the
remarks of the full court impliedly exclude Themba as a member of the
Royal Family, that suggestion is without merit.
The exclusion of the
respondents from any meetings in which Themba was recommended for
appointment as the senior traditional leader
of the amaYende was in
contravention of s 11(1)
(a)
of the Framework Act, thus rendering its resolutions unlawful. On
this ground alone, the appeal ought to fail, as the Premier’s
decision was made pursuant to these material procedural defects.
[23]
Section 25(3) of the Framework Act delineates the scope of the
investigations undertaken by the Commission. It enjoins the
Commission
apply only customary law and customs of the relevant traditional
community when considering a dispute or a claim.
[17]
Accordingly,
the
living succession customs of the AmaZulu as practiced by amaYende
come into sharp focus in this matter.
[24]
Before the Commission, Themba asserted that ‘in terms of the
customary law, the eldest son of the chief is the heir of
the
chieftainship irrespective of whether his mother was married to the
chief or not.’ This version was vehemently denied
by Mbulali,
who maintained that the generally accepted custom of AmaZulu, which
stipulates that the heir of the chieftainship was
the eldest male of
the Great House, was still extant. In the face of these two mutually
exclusive versions, it is unclear why the
Commission preferred
Themba’s version over, Mbulali’s, without the benefit of
any further evidence on this aspect.
[25]
It has been held in a
plethora of judgments that customary law is not static; it evolves.
Courts must acknowledge developments if
they have occurred.
[18]
In this matter, it is undisputed that no evidence of the living
practices of amaYende was placed before the Commission. Although
the
report of the Commission states that its focus area is on ‘the
research and investigation conducted during the latter
part of 2011,
no such research was placed before Manamela AJ as evidence. The
transcript of the claim hearing makes no allusion
to any research
that was done.
[26]
The
appellants contended that the full court erred in failing to accept
that amaYende had ‘moved on’, in other words,
had adopted
modified principles regarding the customary law of succession. That
approach, so contend the appellants, recognises
a custom of
succession in terms of which the first-born male is the heir to the
throne, irrespective of whether his mother is married
or not. The
difficulty for the appellant
s
is that before the Commission, there was no evidence showing that
amaYende had ‘moved on’ from the generally accepted
Zulu
traditional practice that the eldest male heir of the Great House is
the first in line to the throne.
[19]
Other than his say-so, Themba did not tender any evidence to support
his assertions on the actual living customary law observed
by
amaYende as at the time when the claim for senior leadership was
lodged with the Commission.
[27] In
Mamone
, the majority of
the Constitutional Court having noted the need for deference to the
Commission, sounded a warning that when considering
a claim, the
Commission is required by s 25(3) of the Framework Act to consider
and apply the living customary law and customs
of the relevant
traditional community. The court stated as follows:
‘
When
considering a claim, the Commission is required by section 25(3)
(a)
of the Framework Act to “consider and apply customary law and
the customs of the relevant traditional community as they were
when
the events occurred that gave rise to the dispute or claim.”
Notably, this provision tasks the Commission not only with
applying
the relevant customary law to the case before it, but also with
determining what that law was at the relevant time.
This
latter question depends primarily on historical and social facts,
which the Commission must establish through evidence led
before it
and its own investigation
.’
[20]
(Emphasis added.)
[28]
The record of the proceedings held before the Commission does not
reveal any historical or social facts relied upon by the
Commission.
It is clear that the Commission proceeded in the respondents’
absence and made a recommendation without having
considered their
version of their living customs. The full court correctly found that
the customary rules of succession of traditional
leadership which
were accepted by the Commission and the Premier have not been shown
to be the actual living customary law rules
of succession of the
broader AmaZulu or amaYende. This shortcoming fatally tainted the
entire process and thus rendered Themba’s
appointment unlawful.
The full court correctly found that the decision to appoint Themba as
the senior traditional
leader of the amaYende fell to be
reviewed.
[29]
The appellants, in their heads of argument, contended that the custom
contended for by the respondents is unconstitutional
as it
discriminates against children born out of wedlock on the basis of
their mother’s marital status. This contention was
not
persisted with in oral argument before this court, and rightly so,
for the unconstitutionality of the Zulu custom was not frontally
challenged in the papers. Consequently, it cannot be challenged at
appellate stage.
[30]
I consider next the remedy granted by the full court. Having found
that Themba’s nomination was not in compliance with
the
Framework Act on account of not having been sanctioned by the Royal
Family, it ordered the Royal Family of the amaYende to
constitute and
hold a meeting within 15 days of its order. Counsel for the
appellants urged us that, in the event that we were
inclined to
dismiss the appeal, we should modify the order of the full court, as
there might be a dispute about who are the rightful
members of the
Royal Family. The definition of ‘royal family’ in the
Framework Act clearly sets out the persons who
fall within that
category. It is self-evident that all the biological children of the
late chief Yende are an integral part of
that family.
[31]
It is clear from the order granted by the full court that instead of
directing a substitution, it recognised the important
role played by
the Royal Family in the nomination of the senior traditional leader
as envisaged in
Mamone
and
referred the matter back to the Royal Family for that purpose.
Although it is the prerogative of the Royal Family to identify
the
senior traditional leader, it is abundantly clear from the provisions
of the Framework Act that where the title to a traditional
leadership
is contested, it is open to any person to refer a dispute to the
Commission. The order granted by the full court is
thus just and
equitable as it accords with the provisions of the Framework Act.
Consequently, there is no need to modify it. It
follows that the
appeal falls to be dismissed.
[32]
For the sake of completeness, it remains to state that the 15-day
period within which the meeting of the Royal Family must
be convened
will now be reckoned from the date of this Court’s judgment. As
to the costs of appeal, counsel for the appellants
correctly conceded
that there is no reason to depart from the general rule that costs
must follow the result. For the sake of clarity,
it bears pointing
out that since the Premier and the Commission did not participate in
the appeal and filed a notice to abide,
they should not be burdened
with the costs of the appeal beyond the date on which they filed
their notice to abide the decision
of this Court.
[33] In the result, the following
order is made:
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
____________________
M B MOLEMELA
JUDGE
OF APPEAL
Appearances
For
Appellants: M S Phaswane SC (with him L X Dzai)
Instructed
by: Mketsu and Associates, Pretoria
Matsepes Inc,
Bloemfontein
For
Respondent: M E Mathaphuna SC
Instructed
by : Ndobela Lamola Attorneys Inc, Pretoria
Honey
& Partners Inc, Bloemfontein
[1]
‘In terms of the
Traditional
Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003
,
‘senior traditional leader’ means a traditional leader
of a specific traditional community who exercises authority
over a
number of headmen or headwomen in accordance with customary law, or
within whose area of jurisdiction a number of headmen
or headwomen
exercise authority’.
[2]
The
recognition was published in Government Gazette number 2109 on 02
November 2012.
[3]
The
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.
[4]
Shilubana
and Others v Sidwell Nwamitwa and Others
[2008] ZACC 9
;
2009 (2) SA 66
para
42.
[5]
Bapedi
Marota Mamone v Commission of Traditional Leadership Disputes and
Claims and Others
[2014] ZASCA 30
;
[2014] 3 ALL SA 1
(SCA) para 68.
[6]
Themba’s disputation of the existence of the customary law
marriage was not persisted with on appeal.
[7]
Mphephu
v Mphephu-Ramabulana and Others
[2019] ZASCA 58
;
[2019] 3 All SA 51
(SCA);
2019 (7) BCLR 862
(SCA)
para 38.
[8]
See
Bapedi
Marota Mamone v Commission of Traditional Leadership Disputes and
Claims and Others
[2014] ZASCA 30
;
[2014] 3 ALL SA 1
(SCA) para 19.
[9]
See
s 23(1) of the Framework Act. Also see
Nxumalo
v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others
[2014] ZACC 27
para 21.
[10]
Umndeni
(Clan) of Amantungwa and Others v MEC for Housing and Traditional
Affairs KwaZulu-Natal and Another
[2019] ZASCA 142
;
[2011] 2 All SA 548
(SCA)
para
23.
[11]
Shilubana
fn 2
para 45 and 81.
[12]
Mabena
v Letsoalo
1998(2) SA 1068 at 1074H-J.
[13]
Shilubana
fn
2.
[14]
Alexkor
Ltd and Another v Richtersveld
Community
and Others
[2003] ZASCA 18
; 2004(5) SA (SCA) 460 paras 56-7, referring to
Amodu
Tijani v The Secretary, Southern Nigeria
[1921]
2 AC 399
(PC) at 404.
[15]
Shilubana
fn 2 para 46.
[16]
P
ublished
in Government Gazette No 10966 published on 9 October 1987.
[17]
Mamone
fn 7 para 19.
[18]
Shilubana
fn 3 para 46.
[19]
In
terms of
s
81(1)
(a)
of the Natal Code of Zulu Law, the eldest son of the Indlunkulu is
the first in the line of succession to the status and position
of
the family head.
[20]
Mamone
fn 7 para 80.