REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NUMBER: 1640/2021
(1)
(2)
(3)
RE PO RTAB LE: ~NO
OF INTEREST TO THE JUDG ES : ~NO
RE V ISED.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lllllllllllillM
......................... ~
DATE 4 Septem ber 2025 SIGNATURE ............................. .
In the matter between:
KGOSHI NGOANATSOMANE JIM RANTHO N.O.
BAHLAKWANE BA RANTHO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
-and-
LEKGEMANE JIM RANTHO
MINISTER OF CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS
THE PREMIER OF THE LIMPOPO
1 ST APPLICANT
2 ND APPLICANT
1sr RESPONDENT
2 ND RESPONDENT
3RD RESPONDENT
2
THE MEC FOR COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE HUMAN
SETTLEMENT & TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS
THE MINISTER OF MINERAL RESOURCES AND ENERGY
FETAKGOMO TUBATSE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
BAHLAKWANA BA RANTHO TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
SEKOTOME PETRUS RANTHO
MOOKWANE SELINA RANTHO
NGWANAMOHUBE THELMA "NGWANANGWATO "
RANTHO
NTEPANELUCYRANTHO
MANYAKU FLORAH KGOLOKO
PHOTO WILLIAM RANTHO
Delivered 4 September 2025
4TH RESPONDENT
5TH RESPONDENT
6TH RESPONDENT
7TH RESPONDENT
9TH RESPONDENT
9TH RESPONDENT
10TH RESPONDENT
11TH RESPONDENT
12TH RESPONDENT
13TH RESPONDENT
This judgment w as handed dow n electronically by circulation to
the parties' legal representatives by e-mail. The date and time
for hand dow n of the judgment is deemed to be 4 September
2025 at 10:00 am .
D ate heard
Coram
28 May 2025
Bresler AJ
3
JUDGMENT
BRESLER AJ:
Introduction:
[1] The matter before court comprised a ma in application for interdictory and
declaratory relief, a counter application (essentially for declaratory relief), an
application to strike out certain documents as w ell as numerous technical objections
raised by the respective parties.
[2] D uring the course of the proceedings, the parties agreed that the Counter
Application should not be determined by the Court and same w as therefore
postponed sine die, and the costs thereof reserved.
[3] What remained to be determined w as the Main Application for interdictory and
declaratory relief and the App lication to Strike out the Rep lying affidavit.
Factual synop sis:
[4] To have a holistic view of the matter, it is apposite to highlight the background briefly
as it appears from the document filed on record.
4
[5] It is the 1 st and 2nd Applicant's case that they are respectively the only lawful
structure representing the Ga-Ra ntho V illage. As such, the conduct of the 2nd
Respondent presenting himse lf as the Chief of the Ga-Rantho Comm unity is
unlawful and invalid. Appropriate relief is therefore sought on this basis. It does not
appear from the Founding affidavit that the 1 st Applicant is in possession of a
certificate of recognition as a Ch ief/ Traditional Leader issued by the Prem ier and
in accordance w ith the current prevailing legislation.
[6] In justification of their view that they are the legitimate structure, they subm it that
the 1st App licant w as appointed as Chief of the Ra ntho Tribe by the then Ch ief
M inister of the Lebow a Gove rnme nt, Dr CNM Phatudi, w ith effect from 1 September
1977. The alleged letter of appointment w as annexed to the Founding affidavit.
[7] The p t Respondent subm its that the 1st Applicant is merely a Regent or Acting
C hief. The 1st Respondent (with its Traditional Cou ncil) has consequently launched
proceedings in this division under case number: 160/2017 seeking inter alia to set
aside the certificate of appointment of the p t Applicant. This application is still
pending. It is also apparent from their Answ ering affidavit that they do not recognise
the 1 st Applicant as their C hief.
[8] The p t Respondent consequently raised the point in lim ine that the 1st Applicant
lacks the required locus standi. The 1 st Applicant responded to this challenge by
providing further documentary proof in reply. The replying affidavit also contains a
copy of the Gove rnmen t Gazette w herein the jurisdictional area of the 2nd Applicant
w as confirmed as w ell as the identity of the 1 st App licant's predecessor.
5
[9] The 1 st Respondent also raised the issue that the 1 st Applicant's Founding affidavit
w as not properly commissioned as the annexures w ere not initialled.
[1 O] The 8th to 13th Respondent largely joined issues w ith the 1 st Respondent.
[11] The Applicants raised an objection against the First Respondent's conduct in filing
two Answ ering affidavits. The Applicants subm it that the filing of further affidavits
can only be allow ed w ith leave of the court. On this basis, the second Answ ering
affidavit should be disregarded as being pro non scripto.
[12] The Respondents, in return, also objected against the new matter in reply and the
fact that the Applicants are now mak ing out their case in reply. This is essentially
the ma in subject of the Application to Strike out.
Issues that require determination:
[13] What lies at the heart of this application is a determination of the validity of the 1 st
and 2nd Applicant's status as respectively Traditional Leader and Traditional
Counc il. It mus t be determined if the Applicants w ere appropriately recognised in
terms of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, Act 41 of
2003 (hereinafter the 'TLGFA ').
[14] It also transpired during the proceedings that no proof of service of the application
on the 2nd to the 7th Respondent. Although no relief is pertinently prayed for against
them, specifically the 2nd to 4th Respondent's view on the recognition of the
Applicants may be critical to a determination of the underlying dispute.
6
The Applicable Legal Principles:
[15] It is a trite principle of the law of civil procedure that all the essential averments must
appear in the Founding affidavit. Ne w matter in a replying affidavit w ill be allow ed
in the discretion of the court.
[16] In the exercise of this discretion a court should in particular have regard to: (i)
w hether all the facts necessary to determine the new matter raised in the replying
affidavit w ere placed before the court; (ii) w hether the determination of the new
matter w ill prejudice the respondent in a manner that could not be put right by orders
in respect of postponement and costs; (iii) w hether the new matter w as know n to
the applicant w hen the application w as launched; and (iv) w hether the disallow ance
of the new matter w ill result in unnecessary w aste of costs.1
[17] This w as confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in the case of Mostert and
Others v Firstrand B ank Ltd tla RMB Private B ank and Another. 2
[18] In the case of Trustees, Bymy am Trust v Bu tcher Shop & Grill CC 3 the Court
stated:
1 V an Loggerenberg DE , Erasmus: Sup erior C ourt Practice 3rd Edition (Vol 1 ), Juta (2025) on page D1
Rule 6-29
2 2018 (4) SA 443 (SCA )
3 2022 (2) SA 99 (W C C)
7
'It is trite that such discretion must be exercised judicially, having regard to all
the facts and circumstances of the particular matter, and in my view also
having regard to the procedural history of the particular matter which such
court is seized with. I say this because in a matter such as the one before me ,
where there were various amendments which affected and supplemented the
initial relief sought by the parties, together with condonation and irregular-step
applications, the material facts and circumstances relevant to the exercise of
my discretion when determining the striking-out application cannot be viewed
in isolation.'
[19] In the case of Berg v Gossyn 4 leave was granted to supplement the petition w here
the case w hereupon the Applicant relied in the Founding affidavit, w as not
sufficiently set out but the allegations w ere contained in the Rep lying affidavit. The
follow ing w as stated5:
'Die posisie wat ontstaan in 'n geval soos die huidige is, tenspyte van die
klaarblyklike verskille, in baie opsige soos 'n gerval waar die aansoek gedoen
word om 'n nuwe oorsaak van aksie gedurende of voor 'n verhoor in 'n
dagvaarding te voeg. Volgens Herbstein en van Winsen in hulle werk, Civil
Practice of the Superior Courts in South Africa, op bi. 125, behoort so 'n
aandoek in beskikte gevalle toegestaan te word sodat die wesenlike
geskilpunte tussen die partye besleg kan word. Die saak van Greyling v
4 1965 (3) SA 702 (0 )
5 At 705
8
Nieuwoudt, 1951 (1) SA 88 (OJ, is 'n goeie il/ustrasie van die omstandighede
waarin so 'n aansoek toegestaan behoort te word - altyd onderhewig aan 'n
kostebevel ten gunste van die teenparty. Op bi. 93 van die bogenoemde saak
verklaar DE BEER, R.P., SOOS volg:
'But the argument which to my mind is conclusive against the absolution
contention, is that should I accede thereto I would merely penalize plaintiff by
forcing him to commence action de novo and to bear the expense thereof
when the effect will nevertheless be to bring before the same Court the same
parties on the same issue: whilst I am in the circumstances constrained to
ensure the defendant against prejudice, this to my mind does not entail
gratuitously penalizing the plaintiff. I am therefore disposed to come to his
assistance.'
[20] In casu it cannot be denied that the 1 st Respondent is well aware of the certificate
of appointment issued in favour of the 1 st Applicant. Th is appears quite clearly from
the relief prayed for in case number: 160/2017. The fact that they dispute that the
1 st Applicant is entitled to be so appointed is neither here. The appointment stands
until set aside by a Court of law . The Respondents clearly elected not to pursue the
2017 case with vigour. This leaves considerable doubt as to the bona tides of their
opposition to the said appointment some 8 years later and w ithout resorting to the
appropriate remedy.
[21] The Applicants did state the basis of their locus standi in their Founding affidavit.
Add itional information was merely placed before court in reply. On this basis, this
9
Court is inclined to exercise its discretion in allow ing this information into evidence.
Likew ise, the further evidence merely confirms w hat has already been stated in the
Founding affidavit.
[22] The Applicants furthermore provided information pertaining to the further conduct of
certain of the Respondents. This is information that is relevant to the determination
of the proceedings and could not have been disclosed earlier simp ly because it had
yet to transpire. The Court is therefore inclined to also accept the evidence subject
to the Responden ts having an opportunity to answ er thereto.
[23] The parties w ere specifically tasked to provide supplementary Heads w ith regards
to inter a/ia the relevance of the Governmen t Gazette dated the 26th of Ap ril 1968
that w as annexed to the Rep lying affidavit.
[24] In accordance w ith Section 224 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977 and
Section 5 of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, 25 of 1965, it is not necessary
to prove Acts of Parliament or other matters published in the Government Gazette.
A court may take judicial notice thereof. This presupposes that evidence need not
be formally introduced by a w itness and on this basis alone, the evidence pertaining
to the recognition of the 2nd A pplicant and the predecessor of the 1 st Applicant is
admissible even in the absence of being confirmed by affidavit.
[25] As such, this Court accepts that the Rantho tribe w as established and afforded
certain territorial boundaries as contemplated in the said Governmen t Gazette. The
Court furthermore accept that Mmogeng Piet Rantho w as appointed as the Acting
Ch ief.
10
[26] Having said this, this does not presuppose that the Court accepts that the Applicants
are entitled to the relief prayed for. In this regard it is apposite to highlight again
that the application w as not served on the relevant Respondents that has a vested
interest in the recognition of the 1 st App licant (and the potential status of the 2nd
App licant). It also appears that, at the time of the delivery of the Rep lying affidavit,
that this formal recognition process w as still pending to a certain extent as no formal
Certificate of Appointment could be presented, nor w as any Governmen t Gazette
made available to the Court evidencing the publication of the said appointments.
[27] On this basis, the Court is only satisfied that a prima facie right has been
established, and the relief should be formulated accordingly. Insofar as the prima
facie right has been established, it is evident that there is an infringement of the said
right. Since the 1 st Respo ndent is of the view that the 1 st Applicant is not entitled to
any appointment by virtue of being a regent only, the infringement of the 1 st
Applicants perceived functions w ill continue until clarity is obtained from the 3rd and
I or 4th Respondent.
[28] The balance of convenience moreover favours the granting of some form of interim
relief to preserve some form of interim certainty for the members of the comm unity.
Lim ited interdictory relief being granted at this stage is therefore the only appropriate
remedy that w ill yield an eventual dissolution of the pending dispute.
[29] The Applicants did not succeed w ith the requirements for the granting of final relief
- the Court how ever retains a discretion in this regard. If the case is simply
dism issed at this stage, it w ould lead to a multiplicity of legal actions in the future on
11
the very same basis. It w ould also lead to considerable uncertainty in the
community as to w ho the prevailing leaders are. The Court is thus not inclined to
simply dismiss the application at this stage.
[30] As to the numerous other technical objections raised by the parties as to the filing
of additional affidavits, improper commissioning and the like, this Court is of the view
that a pedantic or over-technical view do not assist in resolving the underlying
dispute. None of the issues raised really addresses the proverbial elephant in the
room or w ill lead to substantial injustice should the in limine objection not be upheld.
On this basis, specifically the objection raised on the commissioning of the
App licants' Founding affidavit, stands to be dismissed.
Costs:
[31] Having regard to the conclusion and consequential order granted herein, the costs
must be determined in due course and on the return date.
Order:
[32] In the result the following order is made:
32.1 Pending the return date stated herein after:
32.1.1 The pt Respondent is hereby interdicted from holding himself
out to be the Chief / Kgoshi / Traditional Leader of the Ga-
12
Rantho Community or from representing the 2nd Applicant in
any capacity whatsoever;
30.1.2 The 1 st Respondent is hereby interdicted from concluding any
agreements on behalf of the Ga-Rantho Community or binding
or endeavouring to bind the Ga-Rantho Community and the 2nd
Applicant in any manner whatsoever.
30.2 The aforesaid order shall serve as a rule nisi with immediate effect.
Any Respondent and / or interested party may submit reasons on or
before 22 January 2026 at 10:00 on the opposed motion roll, why the
said order should not be made final.
30.3 The Applicants are hereby directed to serve a copy of this judgment
and order, and a complete indexed and paginated bundle on the 2nd -
7th Respondent as well as a further copy of the judgment, order and
bundle on the State Attorney, Polokwane within 20 (twenty) days from
the date of this order to ensure that the 2nd - 7th Respondent is made
aware of the proceedings and to consider any opposition thereto.
30.4 The 1st, 8th - 11th and 12th Respondents are entitled to deliver an
affidavit in response to the Replying affidavit of the Applicant within a
period of 20 (twenty) days from the date of this order.
13
30.5 The remaining relief prayed for by the Applicants is postponed for
determination on the return date.
30.6 The Application to Strike out is dismissed, costs in the cause.
30. 7 The point in limine in respect of the commissioning of the Applicants'
Founding affidavit is dismissed, costs in the cause.
30.8 The costs of the proceedings are reserved for argument on the return
date.
30.9 The Counter Application is postponed sine die, and the costs
pertaining to the said postponement is reserved for argument in due
course.
M BRESLERAJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT ,
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANTS
INSTRUCTED BY
FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT
INSTRUCTED BY
FOR THE
RESPONDENTS
INSTRUCTED BY
FOR THE 12TH RESPONDENT
14
Adv. M Rasesemola
R Baloyi Incorporated
Johannesburg
rudolph@rbaloyiinc.co.za
masholabs@gmail.com
Adv. T Masindi
PMK Tladi & Associates
Polokwane
makwena@pmktladi.co.za
Mr. M Mabotja
Makwela & Mabotja Attorneys
Polokwane
mm.attorneys@yahoo.com
Mr. M Mathabathe
Legal Aid South Africa
Polokwane
MphoCM@legal-aid.co.za
ThaboL@legal-aid.co.za