IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Not Reportable
CASE NO: 2026/019102
In the matter between:
RAMONO PILANE LINCHWE APPLICANT
PREMIER OF THE NORTH WEST
PROVINCE FIRST RESPONDENT
MOLEFE JOHN NYALALA PILANE SECOND RESPONDENT
MEC: COOPERATIVE GOVERNANCE,
HUMAN SETTLEMENT & TRADITIONAL
AFFAIRS THIRD RESPONDENT
CHAIRMAN OF THE NORTH WEST
HOUSE OF TRADITIONAL LEADERS FOURTH RESPONDENT
BAKGATLA BAKGAFELA ROYAL FAMILY FIFTH RESPONDENT
Coram: Petersen ADJP
Date enrolled: 20 February 2026
Date Heard: 25 February 2026
Judgment reserved: 25 February 2026
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically, circulated to the
parties’ representatives via email, uploaded to CaseLines, and released to SAFLII.
The date and time for the handing down of the judgment are deemed to be 12h30
on 25 February 2026.
Summary: Urgent application for review and setting aside of the Premier ’s
decision to withdraw the applicant’s certificate of recognition – simultaneous
challenge to the reinstatement and recognition of the second respondent as Kgosi
of the Bakgatla Ba Kgafela – application precipitated by the Supreme Court of
Appeal judgment in Pilane & Others v Premier of the North West Province &
Others [2025] ZASCA 126 – point in limine regarding premature review under
Section 5 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA) –
applicant sought to bypass the 90-day statutory period for the provision of reasons
– finding that the Premier acted in compliance with a superior court order – SCA
held that only the Royal Family in Moruleng, within the North West Province,
possesses statutory authority to resolve succession disputes – reliance on
resolutions from the Royal Family in Mochudi, Botswana, deemed unlawful and
extra-territorial – threshold of urgency not met as any perceived urgency was self-
created by the failure to exhaust internal and statutory procedures – application
struck from the roll for lack of urgency – costs awarded against the applicant.
________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________
PETERSEN ADJP:
Introduction
[1] This is an urgent application in which the applicant, Ramono Pilane
Linchwe, seeks to review and set aside the first respondent’s (the Premier ’s)
decision to withdraw his certificate of recognition as Kgosi of the Bakgatla Ba
Kgafela. The applicant further seeks to set aside the Premier’s decision to
recognize the second respondent, Molefe John Nyalala Pilane, as the Kgosi.
[2] The matter comes before this Court following a significant legal history,
culminating in a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on
09 September 2025.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal of 09 September 2025
[3] In Pilane & Others v Premier of the North West Province & Others
(035/2024) [2025] ZASCA 126, the SCA overturned a previous decision of this
Division. The SCA made several critical findings that form the bedrock of the
current dispute . T he Premier’s original decision to withdraw the recognition
certificate of Kgosi Nyalala Pilane (the current second respondent) was unlawful
because it was based on a resolution from the Royal Family in Mochudi,
Botswana. The SCA held that in terms of Section 14 of the North West Traditional
Leadership and Governance Act 2 of 2005 (the North West Act), only the Royal
Family in Moruleng, located within the North West Province, has the authority to
remove or recommend the removal of a Kgosi. The court further found that the
Premier acted unlawfully in issuing the current applicant, Mr. Linchwe, with a
certificate of recognition as an interim or acting Kgosi, as there was no vacancy
to be filled once the second respondent’s removal was set aside.
Urgency
[4] The applicant advanced the following grounds in support of the prayer for
urgency. The withdrawal of his certificate and the reinstatement of the second
respondent would create a ‘leadership vacuum’ and lead to administrative chaos
within the Bakgatla Ba Kgafela Traditional Council. The immediate cessation of
his salary and benefits as Kgosi would cause him irreparable financial harm. That
allowing the second respondent to resume duties violates the traditional customs
of the tribal community as purportedly determined by the Royal Family. The
applicant alleged that the community is ‘on a knife-edge’ and that the Premier’s
decision would trigger volatility and potential violence.
[5] I have carefully considered these grounds against the backdrop of the SCA
judgment and the answering affidavits filed by the respondents. The SCA
judgment was delivered on 09 September 2025. It unequivocally declared the
applicant’s appointment as interim Kgosi unlawful. To my mind the argument that
the applicant was issued a certificate recognising him as the permanent Kgosi,
which should impact the judgment of the SCA, does not avail the applicant. The
applicant has known since the SCA judgment that his legal tenure was terminal.
[6] Furthermore, the applicant requested reasons from the Premier on 15
January 2026. Under Section 5 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3
of 2000 (PAJA), the Premier has 90 days to respond. By launching this application
in February 2026, and at the very least removing it from the urgent roll twice
before proceeding with the application before this Court at the third reenrolment
thereof, speaks volumes of the lack of urgency of the matter. T he applicant has
deliberately bypassed the statutory process. Any urgency arising from a lack of
‘reasons’ is therefore self-created and premature.
[7] The applicant’s contention that a leadership vacuum exists is legally
flawed. The SCA specifically held that because the removal of the s econd
respondent was unlawful, there was never a legal vacancy to be filled. The
‘instability’ the applicant fears is, in fact, the restoration of the lawful status quo
as ordered by a superior court. There can be no urgency in attempting to prevent
the lawful execution of a court order. This argument is further self -destructive
when considering the long -standing history o f the litigation for the throne of
Kgosi.
[8] As to the applicant’s complaint about his loss of income, it is a well-
established principle in our law that financial loss or the loss of a salary does not,
in and of itself, establish urgency. Such loss can be remedied through a claim for
damages or back-pay in due course if the review is ultimately successful. It does
not meet the threshold of ‘irreparable harm’.
[9] The allegations of potential civil unrest and community volatility are thin
on evidence and largely speculative. The applicant failed to provide any concrete
proof that such unrest is imminent or that it is directly linked to the administrative
acts of the Premier in complying with the SCA order. This Court cannot grant
urgency based on vague assertions of social instability and reliance on authority
from the Eastern Cape, where the facts are distinguishable.
[10] The applicant’s reliance on ‘traditional lineage’ and the resolutions of the
Royal Family in Botswana was the very basis upon which the SCA overturned
his appointment. The SCA held that the Premier has no authority to act on
resolutions from the Royal Family in Mochudi, Botswana, regarding the
leadership of a community in Moruleng, South Africa. To claim urgency on the
basis of protecting a ‘lineage’ that a superior court has already deemed irrelevant
to the statutory recognition process is an abuse of the court’s process.
[11] In the final result, the applicant’s claims on urgency based in the main of
the disruption to the traditional leadership is trumped by the fact that he has
jumped the queue since the Premier is still within the 90-day period during which
the Premier may provide reasons for the administrative action.
[12] Furthermore, the ‘urgency’ is arguably self -created by the applicant ’s
unreserved refusal to acknowledge the binding nature of the SCA judgment ,
which he seeks to interpret to favour his case. The SCA has already pronounced
that the applicant’s recognition as interim Kgosi was unlawful. There can be no
urgency in attempting to maintain a status quo that a superior court has already
declared invalid.
[13] In passing, and not specifically impacting the question of urgency , is that
the North West Act and the SCA ’s interpretation thereof are clear . The Royal
Family in Moruleng is the only body with the statutory recognition to recommend
leadership changes. The SCA found that the Premier ’s previous reliance on the
Mochudi Royal Family’s resolutions was an extra-territorial misapplication of the
law. The second respondent holds a valid certificate of recognition issued
following the SCA’s reinstatement of his position. To interdict his exercise of
duties or to review the Premier ’s compliance with the SCA would, as the
respondent argues, effectively require this Court to overrule the Supreme Court
of Appeal, which this Court cannot do.
Conclusion
[14] The application is premature under Section 5 of PAJA. The applicant has
failed to establish a basis for urgency that outweighs the statutory procedures and
the necessity of complying with the SCA order. The matter must, therefore, be
struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
Costs
[15] The applicant's appetite for continued litigation in the face of the
unambiguous SCA judgment and seeking to jump the queue with a meritless
urgent application must be censured with a cost order at the highest scale of Rule
67A.
Order
[16] In the result, I make the following order:
1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
2. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the Respondents on Scale
C of Rule 67 A.
ACTING DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv A T Muthunzi
Instructed by: A Mashila Inc
c/o RS Tau Attorneys
Mafikeng
For the Respondent: Adv K Mongale
Instructed by: The State Attorney
Mmabatho