IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, MTHATHA)
Case No: 3802/2021
In the matter between:
AMAFANA-NKOSI ROYAL FAMILIES Applicant
and
PRINCESS MAGADLA 1st Respondent
PREMIER OF THE EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE 2nd Respondent
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS 3rd Respondent
TANDUXOLO MAGADLA 4th Respondent
MANGUZELA TRIBAL AUTHORITY 5th Respondent
In re:
PRINCESS MAGADLA Applicant
and
·\\. OJ· SCJ\;
PREMIER OF THE EASTER CAPE PROVINCE 1st Respondent
MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS 2nd Respondent
TANDUXOLO MAGADLA 3rd Respondent
MANGUZELA TRIBAL AUTHORITY 4th Respondent
JUDGMENT
ZONO AJ:
Introduction
[1] Pursuant to the granting of the court order dated 17 May 2022 by default, a n
application for rescission thereof was launched together with an application for
condonation of the late filing of the rescis sion application on 31 January 2025. An
answering affidavit was delivered on 7 March 2025, which was followed by a replying
affidavit. A date for hearing of the application for rescission of default judgment in the
opposed motion court was applied for, and the date of the 12 June 2025 was given.
[2] To eliminate any potential confusion in parties’ a ppellations, I propose to refer
to them using their names for clarity. I do so with the utmost humility and respect for
the parties. The judgment sought to be rescinded was obtained in favor of Princess
Magadla (“Princess”) against Tanduxolo Magadla (“Tanduxolo” ), the Premier of the
Eastern Cape (“the Prem ier”), the Member of Executive Council for Co -Operative
Governance and Traditional Affairs (“MEC”) and Manguzela Tribal Authority (“the
Tribal Authority”). It does not appear that the court order of 17 May 2022 had
practical effect on the MEC and the Tribal Authority.
[3] Only Princess Magadla opposed the application for the rescission of the court
order. As stated above, she deposed and filed her answering affidavit, to which
Tanduxolo Magadla replied.
[4] On 4 Ju ne 2025, five (5) court days before the hearing of the application for
rescission of the court order of 17 May 2022 , an application was brought by a party
called Amafana-nkosi Royal Families ( “Amafa-nankosi”), whose legal capacity and
status is not discernible from the founding papers. Amafa -nankosi sought to
intervene in the proceedings as a party in the rescission application. The intervention
application was opposed by Princess Magadla. Amafa -nankosi delivered their
replying affidavit on 10 June 2025 , in which they defined themselves as a royal
family as defined in the Act.1
[5] During the hearing of the matter it logically and legally became clear that the
intervention application, as an interlocutory application, must be heard before the
rescission application. All parties agreed to this approach as the one that is legally
apposite. The matter accordingly proceede d and the intervention application by
Amafa-nankosi was heard. An application of this nature can be made at any stage of
the proceedings.2
Intervention application
[6] The point of departure should be Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules of Court . Rule
12 of the Uniform Rules of Court provides:
“Any person entitled to join as a plaintiff or liable to be joined as a defendant
in any action may, on notice to all parties, at any stage of the proceedings
apply for leave to intervene as a plaintiff or a defendant. The court may upon
such application make such order, including any order as to costs, and give
such directions as to further procedure in the action as to it may seem meet.”
1 Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act, No 1 of 2017.
2 Rule 12 of Uniform Rules of Court.
[7] An intervening party is a person entitled to be joined. As in the case of
joinder3 the applicant for leave to intervene must show that he has a direct and
substantial interest in the subject matter of the action or proceedings .4 The test is
whether or no t a part y has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of
action, that is, a legal interest in the subject matter of the litigation which may be
affected prejudicially by the judgment of the court.5
[8] Amafa-nankosi contend s that it has a legal interest in the subject matter of
proceedings. In doing, Amafa -nankosi pins its faith on the provisions of the Eastern
Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act (“the Act”). Amafa -nankosi
contends that it is the Royal Family contemplated in section 23(4), 24(2) and 25(1) of
the Act. Its central contention is that as a royal family, it plays a central and crucial
role in the identification which leads to the recognition of a traditional leader. It further
contends that, as a royal family, it is pivotal in the removal of a traditional leader. The
epic point of its contention is that the application as well as the court order of 17 May
2022 had an adverse effect on the appointment of a traditional leader in their
jurisdiction. The court order dated 17 May 2022 effectively directed the removal of
their traditional leader without their involvement in the proceedings as a royal family.
It is therefore in the light of the above that Amafa -nankosi contends that it has a
direct and substantial interest in the matter.
[9] Whilst Amafa-nankosi appropriates to themselves a title of a “Royal Family”, it
also state s that there is a broader royal family, which is Magadla Royal Family of
which Amafa -nankosi is part. During argument by counsel for Amafa -nankosi, Mr
Nase, it became crystal that Amafa-nankosi is a breakaway or a dissatisfied group of
Magadla Royal Family. However, it is a common cause that Amafa -nankosi
comprises of individual members of Magadla Royal Family.
comprises of individual members of Magadla Royal Family.
[10] A serious debate arose during hearing about the conflation of a royal family
on the o ne hand and individual members of the royal family . Amafa-nankosi seem
not to appreciate a distinction between individual members of the royal family and
3 Rule 10 of the Uniform Rules of Court
4 Henri Viljoen (Pty) Ltd v Awerbuch Brothers 1953 (2) SA 151 (O) at 167.
5 Zingwazi Contractors CC v Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlements 2021 (6) SA 557
(ECG) para 35.
the royal family itself. A group of persons organising themselves within a statutory
and customary structure in the form of a royal family does not make it (that group of
members) a royal family. They bear the brand of a royal family to which they belong.
Their differences in views and opinions does not extinguish their homogeneity to
their royal family. Amafa -nankosi is a still member of Magadla Royal Family
regardless of their differences. It is not a distinct royal family from the broader
recognised statutory and customa ry institution or structure, which is Magadla Royal
Family. This leads me to the definition of a royal family.
[11] Section 1 of the Act defines a royal family thus: -
“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.”
[12] The plain wording of the definition of a royal family shows that there can only
be one royal family in the traditional community. The plurality of the naming of the
applicant as Amafa -nankosi Royal “families” do not conform with the definition of a
royal family. Secondly, the fact that Magadla Royal Family is not only acknowledged
but also recognised by the Amafa -nankosi as a royal family of which it is a member
attests to the fact that “the broader” royal family, as they call it, is the royal family
within the traditional community. Magadla Royal Family is the royal family defined in
the Act . The Act as a whole envisages that the re is one royal family within the
traditional community. The very sections 23, 24 , 25 and 26 of the Act make
reference only to a singular royal family.
[13] In terms of the provisions of the Act relied upon by the applicant, Amafa -
nankosi, it is the royal family concerned that play a crucial and central role in the
nankosi, it is the royal family concerned that play a crucial and central role in the
appointment and removal of a traditional leader. The part y or royal family that has a
legal interest in the appointment and removal of a traditional leader is the one that
satisfies the definition of a royal family. I have already made a finding that the
applicant, Amafa -nankosi, does not satisfy the definition of a royal family. It wort h
repeating that individual members of a royal family are not a royal family. They are
building blocks or units of a royal family. When they sit as individual members, they
do not attain a status of a royal family.
[14] There was no basis in law for the applicant in the main application, Princess
Magadla to join Amafa -nankosi as they are not a legally recognised royal family.
There is no obligation to join individual members of the royal family when the royal
family has a distinct legal personalit y, with capacity to sue and to be sued in its own
name. Royal family is distinct from its members. I therefore find that the applicant,
Amafa-nankosi has no direct and substantial interest in the matter and therefore
cannot be granted leave to intervene. This application must accordingly fail. I see no
reason why costs cannot follow the result.
[15] I, however, need to expatiate on the question of costs. I have already found
that Amafa-nankosi is not a legally recognised entity and has no legal personality. It
is a structure that is not identifiable. It will also be difficult , if not impossible to grant
an effective order of costs against Amafa-nankosi. An effective costs order can be
granted against those members who identified themselves with this litigation. Mr
Mandla Galo is the deponent to the affidavits aforesaid. In instituting these
proceedings, he relied on a purported authorization or delegation of authority signed
by one Mr Lulama Jojo. No other party or person is identifiable in the papers.
[16] In the result I make the following order: -
16.1 The application for leave to intervene is dismissed.
16.2 Mr Mandla Galo and Mr Lulama Jojo are directed to pay costs of
this application.
AS ZONO
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT (Acting)
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A. Nase
Instructed by: G. Mapena Inc Attorneys
No 22 Blakeway Street
MTHATHA
Contact: 047 531 321
Counsel for the 1st Respondent: Mr Khuzwayo
Instructed by: Gordan Zungu Attorneys
c/o T Noah and Sons Inc
No. 54 Wesley Street
MTHATHA
Contact: 047 531 1686
Counsel for the 4th Respondent: Mr Vobi
Instructed by: Abongile Dumile Attorneys Inc
No.18 Park Road
MTHATHA
Contact: 082 647 7906
Date heard 12 June 2025
Date delivered 19 June 2025