THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Not Reportable
Case No: 949/2018
In the matter between:

MHLANGABEZI RAYMOND MGIJIMA
APPELLANT
and

THE PREMIER OF THE EASTERN CAPE
PROVINCE
FIRST RESPONDENT

THE MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, EASTERN
CAPE PROVINCE
SECOND RESPONDENT

THE CHAIRPERSON, EASTERN CAPE
PROVINCIAL COMMITTEE OF THE
COMMISSION ON TRADITIONAL LEADERSHIP
DISPUTES AND CLAIMS
THIRD RESPONDENT

XABISO ZULU
FOURTH RESPONDENT

Neutral citation: Mgijima v The Premier of the Eastern Cape Province & others
(949/2018) [2020] ZASCA 139 (30 October 2020)

Coram:
MAYA P, DAMBUZA and PLASKET JJA and LEDWABA and
EKSTEEN AJJA
Heard:

12 May 2020

Delivered:
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ representatives by email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and release to SAAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be
14h00 on 30 October 2020.
Ukuwiswa:
Esi sigwebo sawiswa ngeintanethi, ngokusiwa kubameli-
mthethweni bamacala onke ngeimeyili, nangokupapashwa kwisiza sonxibelelwano
seNkundla ePhakamileyo yeziBheno nangokufakwa kuSAAFLII. Umhla nexesha
lokuwiswa kwaso uthathwa njengokuba ngulo: 14h00 nge 30 kuCanzibe 2020.

Summary:            Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 4 of 2005
– review of decision declaring fourth respondent had a hereditary claim to
chieftainship and recognising him as chief of the Zulu Traditional Council, Sheshegu
– no ground of review established by appellant in terms of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 – appeal dismissed.
Isishawankathelo: UMthetho-Sikhokelo wobuNkokheli beMveli noLawulo 4
ka2005 – uphononongo lwesigqibo esabhengeza umphenduli wesine njengonebango
lobundlalifa ebukhosini, sisamkela njengenkosi yeBhunga leMveli kaZulu,
Sheshegu – umbheni akabonisanga mhlaba wakuphonononga ngokoMthetho
wokuKhuthaza ubuLungisa kuLawulo wesi3 ka2000 – isibheno siyachithwa.

_________________________________________________________________
ORDER/UMYALELO
__________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Bhisho (Mageza AJ
sitting as court of first instance):
The appeal is dismissed.
Kwisibheno esivela: kwiSahlulo seNkundla ePhakamileyo yaseMpuma Koloni,
eBhisho (uMageza AJ ehleli njengenkundla yesiqalo setyala):
Isibheno siyachithwa.
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT/ISIGWEBO
__________________________________________________________________
Maya P: (Dambuza and Plasket JJA and Ledwaba and Eksteen AJJA
concurring/bevuma):

[1] This
appeal
concerns
the
chieftainship of the Zulu Traditional
Council of Sheshegu, Alice in the
Eastern Cape Province. It arises from
review proceedings launched in the
Eastern Cape Division of the High Court,
Bhisho, by the late Mr Mhlangabezi
Raymond Mgijima, cited herein as the
appellant. The appellant, however, died
before the application was finalised. He
Esi sibheno singobukhosi beBhunga
leMveli kaZulu laseSheshegu eDikeni,
kwiPhondo leMpuma Koloni. Sisukela
kwityala elaqala kwiSahlulo seNkundla
ePhakamileyo
yaseMpuma
Koloni,
eBhisho,
ngongasekhoyo
uMnu
Mhlangabezi
Raymond
Mgijima
okhankanywe
apha
njengombheni,
kodwa ebhubhe phambi kokuba isicelo
siphunyezwe. Endaweni yakhe kule

was then substituted in the proceedings,
in terms of Uniform Rule 15(2), by his
son, Mr Dumalisile Mgijima.
mbambano kwangena unyana wakhe,
uMnu
Dumalisile
Mgijima,
ngokoMgaqo
olawula
inkqubo
yeenkundla eziPhakamileyo zoMzantsi
Afrika we 15(2).

[2] The orders which were sought in
the review proceedings were (a) the
review and setting aside of the decision
of the first respondent, the Premier of the
Eastern Cape, which declared that the
fourth respondent, Mr Xabiso Zulu, has a
hereditary claim to the chieftainship of
the Zulu Traditional Council at Sheshegu
and dismissing the appellant’s claim
thereto; (b) the review and setting aside
of the decision of the Eastern Cape
Provincial
Committee
of
the
Commission on Traditional Leadership
and Claims (the Committee) chaired by
the third respondent, Dr Nokuzola
Mndende, which recommended the
dismissal of the appellant’s claim to the
chieftainship; and (c) a declarator that the
appellant is recognised as chief of the
Zulu Traditional Council at Sheshegu.
Imiyalelo
eyacelwa
kwityala
lophononongo yayiyile: (a) ukuba
kuchithwe kwesigqibo somphenduli
wokuqala, iNkulumbuso yePhondo
leMpuma
Koloni,
esasibhengeza
ukuba umphenduli wesine uMnu
Xabiso Zulu, unebango lobundlalifa
ebukhosini
beBhunga
leMveli
kaZulu, sigqibo eso satsho salichitha
ibango lombheni kwelobango; (b)
ukuba kuchithwe isigqibo seKomiti
yePhondo
leMpuma
Koloni
yeKomishoni
yamaBango
ngobuNkokheli
beMveli
esihlalo
wayo
ingumphenduli
wesithathu,
uGqirha Nokuzola Mndende, apho
kwandululwa ukuba lichithwe ibango
lombheni kubukhosi obu; kunye (c)
nesibhengezo
sokuba
umbheni
avunywe
njengenkosi
yeBhunga

The application came before Mageza AJ,
who dismissed it, but subsequently
granted the appellant leave to appeal to
this Court. Only the first and third
respondents oppose the appeal. No relief
was sought against the fourth respondent
and the second respondent, the Member
of the Executive Council for Local
Government and Traditional Affairs,
Eastern Cape (the MEC), who was cited
in the proceedings merely as the
functionary
responsible
for
local
government and traditional affairs in the
Eastern Cape Province.
leMveli kaZulu laseSheshegu. Ityala
lachotshelwa
nguMageza
AJ,
owalichithayo, waze wanika umbheni
imvume yokubhenela kuleNkundla.
Ngabaphenduli
owokuqala
nowesithathu kuphela abasichasayo
esi
sibheno.
Akukho
sigwebo
sicelwayo ngakumphenduli wesine
nowesibini,
uMphathiswa
woRhulumente
weNgingqi
neMicimbi
yeMveli,
kwiMpuma
Koloni,
okhankanywe
kule
mbambano
njengonoxanduva
lokujongana nolawulo lwengingqi
nemicimbi
yemveli
kwiPhondo
leMpuma Koloni (uMphathiswa).

[3] The background facts may be
summarized as follows. The appellant,
during his lifetime, and the fourth
respondent are members of the amaHlubi
community at Sheshegu. The dispute
arose when the appellant laid claim to the
chieftainship of the Zulu Traditional
Council against the fourth respondent’s
father, the late Mzwandile Zulu. The
Isishwankathelo
seenkcukacha
ngemvelaphi:
Umbheni,
ngoko
wayesaphila,
kunye
nomphenduli
wesine
bangabemi
abangamaHlubi
baseSheshegu. Imbambano yavela mhla
umbheni wabanga ubukhosi beBhunga
leMveli
kaZulu,
ebubanga
kuyise
womphenduli
wesine
ongasekhoyo,
uMnu
Mzwandile
Zulu,
yena

latter occupied the position from 1992
until 2011, whereupon the fourth
respondent succeeded him. The appellant
contended that he was the rightful
incumbent of the chieftainship as the son
of Elijah Mgijima.
obechophe kwesisihlalo ukusukela ngo
1992 ukuya ku2011, waze walandelwa
ngumphenduli
wesine.
Umbheni
wabanga ukuba nguye onelungelo
lobukhosi
njengonyana
kaElijah
Mgijima.

[4] The claim was determined in a
public
hearing
convened
by
the
Committee.1 In those proceedings, the
appellant’s witness, Terence Mgijima,
traced the chieftainship of Mgijima at
Sheshegu back to 1835, upon the arrival,
in Peddie, of a group of amaHlubi that
had escaped the iMfecane wars in Natal.
According to the witness, the group was
led by Chief Mgijima, who was one of
the abaMbo chiefs that convened a
meeting and took vows of loyalty to the
colonial
British
government
at
Mqwashwini,
named
after
the
uMqwashu tree around which the
meeting gathered. Thereafter the chiefs
Ibango
eli
lashukuxwa
kwimbizo
yesidlangalala eyayibizwe yiKomiti
yeKomishoni
yeeMbambano
namaBango ngobuNkokheli beMveli.
Kulo mbizo, ingqina lombheni, uMnu
Terence Mgijima, wabulanda emva
ukusukela
ngo1835
ubukhosi
bakwaMgijima eSheshegu, ekufikeni
kweqela lamaHlubi eNgqushwa, ebhace
kwiimfazwe
zeMfecane
eNatala.
Ngokwelingqina, eliqela lalikhokelwe
yiNkosi
uMgijima
owayeyenye
yeenkosi zabaMbo ezabiza intlanganiso
zaze
zenza
izibhambathiso
norhulumente
wamaNgesi
angamakoloniyali
eMqwashwini,

1 Established under Chapter 6 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003, in particular
s 22, which provides for the establishment of the Commission, s 25 which empowers the Commission to investigate
and make recommendations on, inter alia, whether any traditional leadership dispute contemplated in subsection (2)
and s 26A, which provides for the establishment of provincial committees to deal with disputes and claims relating to
traditional leadership.

and their followers dispersed to settle in
various areas. Chief Mgijima’s group
settled in Ngxwengxwe, also known as
Kat River Basin. They later moved to
Sheshegu,
which
zoned,
and
the
residents, who were the first people to
settle there, were awarded title deeds for
their land. The fourth respondent’s
family was not among these early
settlers. And as proof thereof, the
appellant furnished an official title deeds
register, which did not reflect any Zulu
names.

isivivane
esathiywa
ngomthi
onguMqwashu
ekwakudityenwe
phantsi kwawo. Emva koko iinkosi
nabalandeli bazo zemka zayakuma
kwiindawo ezahlukeneyo. ElikaNkosi
Mgijima
iqela
laya
kuma
eNgxwengxwe, ekwabizwa ngokuba
yiKat River Basin. Kuthe emva koko
baya kuma eSheshegu, ekwathi babelwa
yona, baze abahlali ababengabokuqala
ukuma
apho
banikwa
iitayitile
zemihlaba yabo. Usapho lomphenduli
wesine
lwalungekho
kwabo
bemi
bokuqala. Ukungqina oku, umphenduli
wesine uthe rhuthu irejista yeetayitile
esesikweni, apho kungekho magama
ooZulu.

[5] The evidence continued that in
1880, Chief Mgijima became the senior
traditional
leader
of
amaHlubi
at
Sheshegu. Upon his death, his son,
Kapoko, succeeded him. Kapoko was
succeeded by his son, Bhalincwadi.
Bhalincwadi was, in turn, succeeded by
his own son, the appellant’s father,
Ubungqina buqhuba buthi ngo 1880,
uNkosi
Mgijima
waba
yinkokheli
yemveli
eyongameleyo
yamaHlubi
aseSheshegu.
Ukubhubha
kwakhe
unyana wakhe uKapoko wathatha
iintambo
endaweni
yakhe,
waza
uKapoko
walandelwa
ngowakhe
unyana uBhalincwadi. UBhalincwadi

Elijah. The appellant was still a minor
when Elijah died hence Elijah’s younger
brother, Mongameli, was appointed as a
regent for him. However, in 1964
Mongameli was removed from the
regency after a spat with the local
magistrate
and
was
replaced
by
Whittaker Mgijima, who ruled until
1974. In 1975, the Mgijima family
brought the appellant back from Port
Elizabeth, where he lived, to assume the
chieftainship.
However,
political
upheavals and new political party
affiliations
arising
from
the
establishment of the Ciskei homeland
interfered
with
the
institution
of
traditional leadership and the appellant’s
appointment. As a result, the fourth
respondent’s father was appointed as the
chief of the Zwelonke Tribal Authority,
as it was then called, until its name was
changed to Zulu Traditional Council in
1978. The appellant was given a position
of a mere headman, which he spurned,
although he did not challenge what he
naye walandelwa ngowakhe unyana,
uElijah
onguyise
wombheni.
Wayeselula
kakhulu
umbheni
ukubhubha
kukaElijah,
kwaze
konyulwa
umninawa
kaElijah
onguMongameli
ukuba
abambele
umbheni.
Nangona
kunjalo,
uMongameli
wasuswa
ekubambeni
akungavisisani nomantyi owayekho,
kwabekwa
uWhittaker
Mgijima
endaweni
yakhe,
owaphatha
de
yangu1974.
Ngo1975
usapho
lwakwaMgijima lwamlanda umbheni
owayesele
engumhlali
waseBhayi,
ukuba athabathe ubukhosi. Iintshukumo
zopolitiko, namaqela amatsha awavela
ngokusekwa korhulumente wephandle
laseCiskei,
zaphazamisana
nokumiselwa
kolawulo
lwemveli,
kunye nobeko lombheni. Ngenxa yoko,
uyise womphenduli wesine wabekwa
wayinkosi
yeGunya
leSizwe
uZwelonke, njengoko yayibizwa ngelo
xesha, gama elo lathi lajikwa laba
liBhunga leMveli kaZulu ngo1978.
Umbheni wanikwa isikhundlana nje

considered a usurpation of his birth right
out of fear of victimisation.

sokuba
sisibonda,
awasicekisayo
njengokwebiwa kwelifa lakhe, nangona
engazange
afake
simangalo
kuba
esoyika ukuba lixhoba lentshutshiso.

[6] Mr
Xolile
Zulu
made
representations
on
the
fourth
respondent’s behalf and advanced a
different version of the genealogy and
chieftainship of amaHlubi of Sheshegu.
On his account, abaMbo arrived in
Peddie in 1835 led by Chief Msuthu, who
had two sons, Tyhefu and Zulu. Zulu
later moved to Sheshegu whilst Tyhefu
remained in Peddie. At some stage, Chief
Msuthu deployed a Mfengu regiment led
by Zulu, to assist the British army in the
war of Mlanjeni. Zulu left behind a son,
Thalanyana, but had a fellow clansman,
Mvunga, act as the traditional leader of
Sheshegu during his absence because
Thalanyana was still very young. After
the war, Zulu was rewarded with a parcel
of land in Butterworth, where he settled
and established the Hlubi chieftainship in
the late 1800’s. Because the institution of
UMnu
Xolile
Zulu,
engqinela
umphenduli
wesine,
wayibeka
ngendlela
eyohluke
mpela
imbali
yomnombo
nobukhosi
bamaHlubi
aseSheshegu. Ngokokutsho kwakhe,
abaMbo bafika eNgqushwa ngo1835
bekhokelwe
nguNkosi
Msuthu,
owayenoonyana
ababini,
uTyhefu
noZulu.
UZulu
waye
wafudukela
eSheshegu, waze yena uTyhefu wahlala
kwaseNgqushwa.
Kuthe
ethubeni,
uNkosi
Msuthu
wakhupha
ibutho
elalikhokelwe
nguZulu
ukuya
kuncedisa
umkhosi
wamaNgesi
kwimfazwe kaMlanjeni. UZulu washiya
ngemva unyana wakhe uThalanyana,
kodwa wabanjelwa kwalelinye iHlubi,
uMvunga, kuba wayeselula kakhulu
uThalanyana. Ukuphela kwemfazwe,
uZulu
wawongwa
ngomhlaba
owawuseGcuwa, apho wema khona

chieftainship was suppressed by the
British colonial government, Thalanyana
and his descendants were not recognised
as chiefs and Sheshegu was ruled by a
series of headmen for the next century.

wamilisela
ubukhosi
bamaHlubi
ekupheleni kwenkulungwane yoo1800.
Kwathi kuba ubukhosi babungafunwa
ngurhulumente
wamaNgesi,
uThalanyana
nesizukulwana
sakhe
abazange
babonelwe
ntweni
njengeenkosi, yaze yabe ke iSheshegu
ilawulwa
zizibonda
ngezibonda
inkulungwane yonke elandelayo.

[7] Mvunga had followed Chief Zulu
to Butterworth and left another Hlubi,
Luzipho, in charge of Sheshegu. Luzipho
was succeeded by Ntuntwana, from
whom Mgijima, Kapoko’s father, took
the reins, as a headman. The line of
succession was not in dispute from this
point. The respective versions diverged
only in respect of the events which
unfolded in 1975, after Whittaker’s rule.
According to Xolile, the resident
magistrate
advised
the
Sheshegu
community to choose a chief. Counsel
was then sought from Chief Msuthu’s
surviving
descendant
in
Peddie,
Tyhefu’s son, Nkebeza. He advised that
UMvunga walandela uNkosi Zulu waya
eGcuwa
eshiya
elinye
iHlubi
elinguLuzipho
liphethe
eSheshegu.
ULuzipho wanikezela kuNtuntwana,
owanikezela yena kuMgijima uyise
kaKapoko ukuba abesisibonda. Ukuza
kufika
kwesi
sithuba
bekungekho
mbambano ngomnombo wokulawula.
Impikiswano
iqale
ngeziganeko
ezenzeke ngo1975 emva kokuphatha
kukaWhittaker.
NgokukaXolile,
umantyi welooxesha wandulula ukuba
abemi
baseSheshegu
bazikhethele
inkosi.
Kwayiwa
eNgqushwa
kwisizukulwana esisaphilayo sikaNkosi
Msuthu
esasinguNkebeza
unyana

the
chieftainship
of
amaHlubi
at
Sheshegu resided in the house of Zulu.
An identification process led to Mahlubi
Zulu, who ruled from 1978 and was
succeeded by his son, Mzwandile.
Mzwandile’s son, the fourth respondent,
assumed the chieftainship in 2011. Xolile
was corroborated by a further witness for
the fourth respondent, Zimasile Zulu,
who disputed that the change in
government had anything to do with the
resuscitation
of
the
amaHlubi
chieftainship at Sheshegu. He recounted
a number of meetings convened by the
amaHlubi themselves to identify their
chief, which culminated in a voting
process conducted by the magistrate in a
meeting held on 8 March 1973, in which
Zulu got 44 votes and Mgijima only 22
votes.

kaTyhefu.
Wathi
yena
ubukhosi
bamaHlubi
eSheshegu
bobendlu
kaZulu. Iphulo lokutyumba lakhokelela
kuMahlubi Zulu, owalawula ukusukela
ngo1978 waze walandelwa ngunyana
wakhe
uMzwandile.
Unyana
kaMzwandile, ongumphenduli wesine,
wathatha iintambo ngo2011. UXolile
ungqinelwe
lelinye
ingqina
lomphenduli wesine, uMnu Zimasile
Zulu,
okhanyeleyo
ukuba
inguqu
eyenzeka kurhulumente yaba nefuthe
ekuvuseni
ubukhosi
bamaHlubi
eSheshegu. Ulande uthotho lweembizo
ezabizwa
ngamaHlubi
ngokwawo
ukuze
azityumbele
inkosi
yawo,
umsebenzi
owaqukunjelwa
ngevoti
eyaqhutywa
ngumantyi
ngeye8
yoKwindla
ngo1973
apho
uZulu
wazuza
iivoti
ezingama-44,
waza
uMgijima wanama-22 kuphela.

[8] The Committee evaluated the
representations made to it and relied on
the works of two historians, Ngqangweni
and Ncwana, who supported the fourth
IKomiti izivavanyile ezi nkcazelo
yakugqiba
ukuziva,
yaqamela
ngababhali bezeembali uNgqangweni
noNcwana,
abathi
bangqinelana

respondent’s version. The historical
writings confirm Chief Msuthu’s royal
lineage (from Mthimkulu I - Radebe -
Ngwane - Maqhubela - Mjoli - and
Msuthu’s father, Zide) and that he was
one of the abaMbo chiefs that trekked to
Peddie and subsequently congregated at
Mqwashwini. The writings make no
mention of Mgijima at that stage. In the
Committee’s
view,
this
omission
supported the assertion that ‘Mgijima
only surfaced in the leadership of
Sheshegu when he was succeeding
Ntuntwana as a headman’. It dismissed
the appellant’s reliance on the title deeds
register on the basis that the document,
which was very old, had a lot of missing
names that were obliterated by old age.

nenkcazelo
yomphenduli
wesine.
Ezembali
ziyawuvuma
umnombo
wobukhosi
bukaMsuthu
(ukusukela
kuMthimkulu I - Radebe - Ngwane -
Maqhubela - Mjoli – noyise kaMsuthu
uZide),
zikwangqina
nokuba
wayeyenye yeenkosi zabaMbo ezaya
eNgqushwa
zaze
zahlangana
eMqwashwini. Kwezimbali akuthethwa
kwaphela
ngoMgijima
ngelaxesha.
Ngokokubona kweKomiti, ukungaveli
kwegama
lakhe
kuxhasa
imbono
yokuba
uMgijima
ungene
ebunkokhelini
baseSheshegu
ekuthatheni
kwakhe
ububonda
kuNtuntwana.
IKomiti
kwakhona
ikuchithile
ukuxhathisa
kombheni
ngerejista yeetayitile zemihlaba kuba
olu xwebhu ludala, nto leyo eyenza
ukuba ngenxa yobudala abe amagama
amaninzi sewacimeka.

[9] The Committee accepted the
fourth respondent’s version that the
Mgijimas were all headmen and not
chiefs. It relied on the repealed Bantu
IKomiti
yakwamkela
okuthethwe
ngumphenduli
wesine
ukuba
ooMgijima babezizibonda, bengezizo
iinkosi. Yaye yaqamela kuMthetho

Authorities Act 68 of 1951, which
distinguished
between
chiefs
and
headmen, and official correspondence
that referred to Whittaker as a headman.
It concluded that the Zulu chieftainship,
which was lost when Thalanyana missed
his turn to ascend to the throne, ‘was
resuscitated on the basis of its hereditary
claim to chieftainship which stretches
through a number of generations as most
of its forebears were … of royal blood’
and rightly belonged to the fourth
respondent’s father. In a ruling dated 11
April 2013, the Committee unanimously
recommended that the appellant’s claim
be dismissed.2 Thereafter, it conveyed its
decision to the Premier for final decision
in terms of s 26 of the Traditional
Leadership and Governance Framework
Act 41 of 2003 (the Framework Act).3

wooGunyaziwe baBantu 68 ka1952
osewayekwayo, owawusahlula phakathi
kweenkosi
nezibonda,
kunye
nembalelwano
yasebuRhulumenteni
eyayisithi
uWhittaker
usisibonda.
Yagqiba
yathi
ubukhosi
booZulu,
abaphulukana
nabo
ngokuthi
uThalanyana
aphose
ukuthabatha
isikhundla
sobukhosi
ngesakhe
isihlandlo,
bavuseleleka
ngenxa
yebango
lobundlalifa
bobukhosi
bezizukulwana ngezizukulwana kuba
ooyisemkhulu
babengabantwana
begazi, nto leyo etsho mhlophe ukuba
uyise womphenduli wesine nguye
onelungelo
lobukhosi.
Kwisigqibo
somhla we 11 kuTshazimpuzi 2013,
iKomiti
yavumelana
ngesindululo
sokuba ibango lombheni lichithwe.
Emva
koko,
yasidlulisela
kwiNkulumbuso ukuze yenze isigqibo

2 In terms of s 26(1) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003, a ‘recommendation
of the Commission is taken with the support of at least two thirds of the members of the Commission’.
3 As the provincial State functionary vested with the executive authority to make final decisions on traditional
leadership disputes. The power derives from s 127(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, in
terms of which the Premier of a province has the powers and functions entrusted to that office by the Constitution and
any legislation. In this case that legislation is the Framework Act, in particular, ss 26(2)(b) and (3) thereof in terms of
which the Commission’s recommendations are to be conveyed to the Premier within two weeks of being made and
thereafter decided upon within 60 days.

sokwenene
ngokweCandelo
loMthetho 41 ka 2003, wobuNkokheli
beMveli
nesiKhokelo
soLawulo
(uMthetho Sikhokelo).

[10] On 10 October 2013, the Premier
(then Ms Noxolo Kiviet) issued a
decision couched as follows:
‘Pursuant
to
an
investigation
and
recommendations of the Committee of the
Commission on Traditional Leadership
Claims and Disputes in terms of Sections 25
and 26 of the Traditional Leadership and
Governance Framework Act, Act No. 41 of
2003) as amended, the claim of Mhlangabezi
Raymond
Mgijima
against
the
late
Mzwandile Zulu is hereby dismissed on the
following grounds:
(a)  The evidence at hand suggests that both
Mgiima and Zulu claim to be the chiefs of
amaHlubi and they trace Peddie to be their
point of departure to Sheshegu. Mgijima
specifically alleges to have left Peddie
subsequent to the making of the vows by
amaMfengu at Mqwashwini. According to
Ngqangweni (2005:08) “Iinkosi ezazikhokela
abaMbo
ukusuka
eNatal
kwezamaHlubi
yayinguZulu kaMafa, uMlambiso, uZibi ka
[10] Ngomhla we10 kweyeDwarha
ngo2013,
iNkulumbuso
(eyayingu
Nkosz Noxolo Kiviet ngelo xesha)
yakhupha isigqibo esibhalwe ngolu
hlobo:
‘Emva kophando nezindululo zeKomiti
yeKomishoni
yeeMbambano
namaBango
ngobuNkokheli beMveli ngokwamaCandelo
25 kunye no 26 oMthetho Sikhokelo,
uMthetho 41 ka 2003) ohlonyelelweyo,
ibango likaMhlangabezi Raymond Mgijima
ngakuMzwandile
Zulu
ongasekhoyo
liyachithwa ukwenjenje oku ngezizizathu
zilandelayo:
(a)
Ubungqina
obukhoyo
kaloku
nje
bukhomba ukuba uMgijima noZulu bobabini
babanga
ngelithi
baziinkosi
zamaHlubi,
belanda iNgqushwa njengendawo abasuka
kuyo ukuya eSheshegu. UMgijima ude athi
yena wemka eNgqushwa emva kokwenziwa
kwezibhambathiso
ngamaMfengu
eMqwashwini.
Ngokokutsho
kukaNgqangweni
(2005:08)
“Iinkosi
ezazikhokela
abaMbo
ukusuka
eNatala

Matomela, uZimema, uMsuthu noMbilase”. In
this list there is no mention of Mgijima.

(b)  It cannot be denied that the chieftainship
in the house of Zulu got lost when Thalanyana,
Zulu’s son, did not ascend to the throne, after
Zulu’s departure for Butterworth, and the
leadership at Sheshegu was left at the mercy of
various Hlubi headmen for about a century of
which the greater number of headmen were
from the Mgijima family.

(c) It needs to be acknowledged that
chieftainship in the house of Zulu was
resuscitated on the basis of its hereditary claim
to chieftainship which stretches through a
number of generations. If then the incumbent
traces his lineage from the above background,
then he is of royal blood and is correctly
appointed as a chief of Zulu Traditional
Council.

(d)
According
to
Ncwana
(1953:04)
“UMthimkhulu wokuqala kwindlu yakhe
yasekunene
wazala
uRadebe,
waza
ke
uRadebe kobakhe ubukhosi kwindlu enkulu
wazala uNgwane, ozele uMaqhubela ozele
kwezamaHlubi
yayinguZulu
kaMafa,
uMlambiso, uZibi ka Matomela, uZimema,
uMsuthu noMbilase”. Kolu luhlu alikho igama
likaMgijima.

(b)
Ayinakuphikwa
mntu
into
yokuba
ubukhosi bendlu kaZulu baphuncuka ngokuthi
uThalanyana unyana kaZulu angasithathi
isihlalo sobukhosi emva kokufuduka kukaZulu
esiya eGcuwa. Ngaphezu koko, iSheshegu
yalawulwa
zizibonda
ezingamaHlubi
inkulungwane yonke yeminyaka – ezininzi
kwezo zibonda yayizezakwaMgijima.

(c)  Kumele kwamkelwe ukuba ubukhosi
bendlu kaZulu bavuseleleka ngenxa yebango
lobundlalifa kumnombo omde wezizukulwana
ngezizukulwana. Ukuba ke lo uphetheyo
ngoku uwulanda umnombo wakhe kule
mvelaphi ingentla, ngenene unegazi lobukhosi
kwaye ubekwe ngokufanelekileyo ukuba abe
yinkosi yeBhunga leMveli kaZulu.

(d)
UNcwana
(1953:04)
ubhala
athi
“UMthimkhulu wokuqala kwindlu yakhe
yasekunene
wazala
uRadebe,
waza
ke
uRadebe kobakhe ubukhosi kwindlu enkulu
wazala uNgwane, ozele uMaqhubela, ozele

uMjoli, ozele uZide, ozele uMsuthu, ozele
uZulu noTyhefu”.

(e)  The above extract confirms the fact that
Zulu had royal background even though at
some stage it disappeared and was resuscitated
in 1978.

(f)  The respondent thus has a hereditary claim
to the chieftainship of Zulu.’

uMjoli, ozele uZide, azele uMsuthu, ozele
uZulu noTyhefu”.

(e)  Isicatshulwa esingentla siyangqina ukuba
uZulu ngowomnombo wobukhosi, nangona
bebukhe balahleka isigaba esithile baza
babuya bavuseleleka ngonyaka ka1978.

(f)
Umphenduli
ngoko
unalo
ibango
lobundlalifa kubukhosi bukaZulu.’

[11] These decisions prompted the
appellant
to
launch
the
review
proceedings. He raised a number of
review grounds. However, some of them,
for example that the Committee’s
unanimous decision did not have the
support of at least two thirds of its
members and was not conveyed to the
Premier within two weeks after it was
made, in breach of s 26(1) and (2), were
patently disproved by the record itself.

Ezi
zigqibo
zikhokelele
ekubeni
umbheni andulule olu phononongo.
Ubale
izizathu
eziliqela
zokuba
enjenjalo. Nangona kunjalo, amanye
amanqaku
ame
ngawo
akhatywe
ngokuphandle
yingxelo
ngokwayo,
umzekelo
leli
lokuba
isigqibo
ekuvunyelwene ngaso yiKomiti iphela
ayifumananga
nkxaso
yesibini
kwisithathu
samalungu
ayo,
yaze
ayadluliselwa kwiNkulumbuso phambi
kokuba kudlule iiveki ezimbini senziwe
isigqibo, nto leyo enxamnye neCandelo
26(1) kunye no (2).
[12] The
grounds
which
were
vigorously pursued were that (a) the
Izizathu ekuthe kwagxilwa ngamandla
kuzo zezi (a) isigqibo seNkulumbuso

Premier’s
written
decision
was
reviewable because it was not counter-
signed by the MEC, in breach of s 140(2)
of the Constitution; (b) the Premier’s
affidavits fell to be struck out because the
answering affidavit deposed to by
Premier Phumulo Masualle constituted
hearsay and opinion evidence as he did
not make the impugned decision and the
confirmatory
affidavit
of
his
predecessor, former Premier Noxolo
Kiviet, who actually made the decision,
failed to answer material allegations in
the appellant’s founding affidavit; and
(c) the merits favoured the appellant
because the Hlubi genealogy and
credible historical records proved the
Mgijima
chieftainship
and
the
Committee failed to discharge its
investigative and inquisitorial functions
and to conduct a full and proper research
into his claim. The appellant also sought
condonation for the late filing of the
review application, which he brought
under s 7(1) of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (the
esibhaliweyo sadinga ukuvavanywa
kuba
singasayinwanga
nanguMphathiswa, nto leyo inxamnye
neCandelo 140(2) loMgaqo Siseko; (b)
amaxwebhu obungqina eNkulumbuso
achithwa
kuba
amaxwebhu
aphendulayo
avela
kuNkulumbuso
Phumulo
Masualle
ayengundiva,
ekwabubungqina obuziimbono zakhe
kuba zange senziwe nguye isigqibo
kwaye
kwanoxwebhu
oluxhasayo
olwenziwa
ngowayesakumandulela
esihlalweni
sakhe,
owayesakuba
yiNkulumbuso uNoxolo Kiviet, onguye
owenza
isigqibo,
wasilela
ekuphenduleni izityholo eziqulethwe
kuxwebhu lokuseka lombheni; nokuba
(c) kuninzi okungecala lombheni kuba
umlibo wamaHlubi, kunye noovimba
bezembali
abanokuthenjwa
ziyabungqina ubukhosi booMgijima
yaye neKomiti yasilela ekwenzeni
umsebenzi wayo wokuphanda nzulu
ngebango lakhe. Umbheni waphinda
wangxengxeza ngokungenisa isicelo
sakhe sovavanyo seleshiyiwe lixesha,

PAJA), and his late replying affidavit, in
which he introduced additional historical
evidence that he claimed to have since
found in the national archives, to bolster
his claim.

awasifaka eqamele ngeCandelo 7(1)
loMthetho
wokuKhuthazwa
kobuLungisa
kuLawulo
ka2000
(PAJA),
nangokuphinda
ashiywe
lixesha ekungeniseni uxwebhu lwakhe
oluphendulayo, apho wangenisa obunye
ubungqina
bezembali
aawayesithi
ubufumene
koovimba
besizwe,
ukuxhasa ibango lakhe.

[13] The Premier, Dr Mndende, and
the
fourth
respondent
strenuously
opposed the application and averred that
the appellant’s claim was properly and
fully investigated and adjudicated by the
Committee and thereafter, the former
Premier. The Premier fully aligned
himself with the Committee’s findings
and
recommendations
and
the
allegations in Dr Mndende’s affidavit
and disputed that his predecessor
committed any misdirection in making
her decision.

INkulumbuso, uGqirha Mndende kunye
nomphenduli
wesine
basichase
ngamandla
isicelo,
besithi
ibango
lombheni laphandwa ngokwaneleyo,
laza lagwetywa yiKomiti, kwakunye
neNkulumbuso
emva
koko.
INkulumbuso
yazayamanisa
ngokupheleleyo
neziphumo
nezindululo nezityholo ezazikuxwebhu
bungqina
lukaGqirha
Mndende,
ekuphikisa ukuba owayesesihlalweni
ngaphambi kwakhe wenza imposiso
ukwenza kwakhe isigqibo sakhe.

[14] Dr Mndende supported the fourth
respondent’s version of the amaHlubi
UGqirha Mndende wayixhasa imbali
yomphenduli wesine elanda umlibo

genealogy and history that established
the chieftainship of Zulu at Sheshegu and
robustly challenged the appellant’s
account. According to her, amaHlubi
were part of a larger group of
amaMfengu that escaped the iMfecane
wars in Natal.  A faction of that group
settled in Butterworth and the others
moved further and settled in Peddie.  It is
the Radebe faction of the amaMfengu,
led by Mpahla, Msuthu’s regent, that
gathered at Mqwashwini. She refuted the
allegation that the group that escaped
iMfecane and the one that later settled at
Sheshegu after the vows at Mqwaswhini
were led by a Chief Mgijima. On her
version, the first chief at Sheshegu was
Zulu, the fourth respondent’s great, great
grandfather and all the Mgijimas that
subsequently held traditional leadership
positions there were merely headmen.

nemvelaphi yamaHlubi ekwasekelwa
ubukhosi
bukaZulu
eSheshegu,
eyihlaba qatha eyombheni yona imbali.
Ngokokwakhe, amaHlubi ayeyinxenye
yeqela elikhulu lamaMfengu awabhaca
ebaleka iimfazwe zeMfecane eNatala.
Abaqhezuka kwelo qela bayakuma
eGcuwa, abanye bahamba umganyana
baya kuma eNgqushwa. NgamaMfengu
angooRadebe, ekhokelwe nguMpahla
owayebambele
uMsuthu,
awathi
ahlanganela eMqwashwini. Wasikhaba
isityholo
sokuba
iqela
elabaleka
iMfecane nelayakuma eSheshegu emva
kwezibhambathiso
zaseMqwashwini
lalikhokelwe
nguNkosi
Mgijima.
Ngokokwakhe
inkosi
yokuqala
eSheshegu
yayinguZulu,
ukhokho
womphenduli wesine, kwaye bonke
ooMgijima
abagqibela
bekulawulo
lwemveli babezizibonda kuphela.

[15] Dr
Mndende
dismissed
the
defective title deed relied upon by the
appellant to prove that there were no
Zulus among the early Sheshegu settlers.
UGqirha Mndende wayikhaba itayitile
yomhlaba eneziphene awayeqamele
ngayo
umbheni
ukungqina
ukuba
kwakungekho
Zulu
kubemi

She produced documentation retrieved
from the national archives dating back to
1940, which listed Zulu, Ntuntwana and
Msuthu families among Sheshegu’s
original residents. She then pointed out
that Victoria East, alias Sheshegu, came
into existence and would have been
occupied by amaMfengu only after the
British defeated amaXhosa in war and
annexed their land in 1847. On the basis
of the appellant’s own records showing
Kapoko to have been the first Mgijima
headman at Sheshegu in 1880, she
surmised that Zulu ruled Sheshegu
between 1847 and when he went off to
the War of Mlanjeni, to command
amaMfengu assisting the British. She
also pointed out Zulu’s depiction in the
appellant’s own genealogy as the right-
hand house of Mthimkhulu I, and
Mgijima as the right-hand house of
Radebe, who was on the same line as
Zulu. This placed Zulu far senior to
Mgijima and Dr Mndende contended that
this ruled out any possibility that
baseSheshegu bokuqala. Wathi thaca
amaxwebhu onyaka ka1940 atsalwe
koovimba besizwe anoluhlu leentsapho
zooZulu, zooNtuntwana nooMsuthu
phakathi kwabemi bokuqala eSheshegu.
Wandula ukwaleka ukuba iVictoria
East, ekwayiSheshegu, yasekwa emva
kokoyiswa kwamaXhosa ngamaNgesi
ngo1847 aze awuhlutha umhlaba wawo,
kwaze
kwema
amaMfengu
kuyo.
Ezombheni iingxelo zibonisa uKapoko
inguye
isibonda
sokuqala
sakwaMgijima eSheshegu ngo1880,
watsho uGqirha wathekelela ukuba
uZulu walawula eSheshegu phakathi
kuka1847 nexesha awemka ngalo ukuya
emfazweni
kaMlanjeni,
esiya
kukhokela
amaMfengu
kuncediswa
amaNgesi. Waphinda wabalula ukuba
ingxelo yombheni ikhomba umnombo
wakhe
kwindlu
yasekunene
kaMthimkhulu
1,
noMgijima
njengowendlu yasekunene kaRadebe
owayekumlibo omnye noZulu. Le
ngxelo
yamenza
wangaphezulu
kanobom
ngokwezindlu
uZulu

Mgijima would be a chief over Zulu in
the same community.

kunoMgijima, watsho wathi uGqirha
Mndende kwakungekho ndlela yokuba
uMgijima angayinkosi ekhona uZulu
kuloongingqi.

[16] The court a quo condoned the
appellant’s delay in launching the review
application. But it refused to admit the
new evidence raised in reply. The court
took the view that the appellant, who had
been legally represented and had ‘his
own advisors and interlocutors’, was
afforded ample opportunity to research
and
present his case
before
the
Committee.  Granting the indulgence
would prejudice the respondents, who
had no chance to deal with the new
material, so it held.  The court further
found no reason to strike out the
Premier’s affidavit in which he aligned
himself with and defended former
Premier Kiviet’s decision.  The court
also refused to decide whether the
Premier’s decision required the MEC’s
counter-signature in terms of s 140(1)
and (2) of the Constitution on the basis
Inkundla
yamxolela
umbheni
ngokulibazisa ukufaka isicelo sakhe
sovavanyo.
Kodwa
zange
ivume
ukubamkela
ubungqina
obutsha
abuveze
kwimpendulo
yakhe.
Ngokoluvo
lwenkundla
umbheni,
owayemelwe ligqwetha, ekwanabakhe
abacebisi,
nabanxibelelanisi
bakhe,
walinikwa ixesha elaneleyo lokuphanda
aze abeke bonke ubungqina bakhe
phambi kweKomiti. Ukumvulela lo
mtyhi
kwakunokubadlela
indlala
abaphenduli, abangafumananga thuba
bona
lokugocagoca
la
maxwebhu
matsha, yatsho inkundla. Ngapha koko
ayifumananga
sizathu
sakuluchitha
uxwebhu
lweNkulumbuso
apho
yayizayamanisa ikwakhusela isigqibo
seNkulumbuso yangaphambili uKiviet.
Iphinde inkundla yala ukugqiba ukuba
isigqibo seNkulumbuso kunyanzelekile

that the point was raised for the first time
in the appellant’s supplementary heads
of argument and was not substantively
argued. The court also referred to a
decision involving a similar issue, which
was the subject of a pending appeal.
ukuba sisayinwe nanguMphathiswa na,
ngokweCandelo 140 (1) kunye no (2)
loMgaqo Siseko kuba
isithi oku
kwaqala
ukuvela
kumaxwebhu
ombheni wezihloko zengxoxo, kwaza
akwaxoxwa ngokwaneleyo. Inkundla
yaphinda yabalula nesinye isigqibo
senkundla kumba okumila kunje, umba
olinde isibheno esingxangileyo.

[17] Regarding the merits of the claim,
the court a quo noted a concession made
by the appellant’s counsel that the
evidence led before the Committee
properly included ‘research in all the
relevant
libraries
and
institutional
archives on British occupation in Cape
Town and Pretoria in order to properly
investigate the issues pertaining to the
dispute’. The court observed that the
appellant’s real complaint was that the
Committee did not consult certain
historians, in particular a Professor Jeff
Peires, who allegedly held a different
view to those to which the Committee
had recourse. The court dismissed this
Malunga nesihlahla sebango, inkundla
igqale isivumo esenziwe ngummeli
wombheni
sokuba
ubungqina
obondlelwe
phambi
kweKomiti
badandalazisa ngokwaneleyo uphando
olwenziwa
kumathala
eencwadi
nakoovimba
ngobukoloniyali
bamaNgesi,
busenziwa
eKapa
nasePitoli ekuphicotheni yonke imiba
engale mbambano. Inkundla yaphawula
ukuba
esona
sikhalazo
sombheni
yayikukuba
iKomiti
ayizange
iqondisise
kwezinye
iingcaphephe
zezembali, ngakumbi uNjingalwazi Jeff
Peires, yena obona ngokwahlukileyo
kwiingcaphephe ezajongwa yiKomiti.

criticism on the ground that it was the
appellant’s responsibility to properly
collate
and
present
his
evidence,
including the historical information,
which was readily accessible from the
National History Libraries, in his
founding affidavit. The court concluded
that the Committee clearly conducted its
own investigation and could hardly be
expected to consult ‘each and every
expert available in the country’.

Inkundla
yasichitha
esisikhalazo
ngelithi
uxanduva
lolombheni
lokuqokelela
zonke
iinkcukacha
zobungqina aze abondlale kuxwebhu
lwakhe lwesiseko, kuquka nezeembali
ezifumaneka lula kumaThala eSizwe
ezeMbali. Inkundla yagqibela ngelithi
iKomiti yazenzela olwayo uphando,
kwaye
kungalindelekanga
ukuba
iphande kuzo zonke iingcaphephe
ezikhoyo kweli.

[18] The appellant persisted with his
main review grounds in the court a quo
on appeal before us. First, it was
contended that the Premier’s answering
affidavit
was
inadmissible
as
it
impermissibly commented on former
Premier Kiviet’s state of mind when she
was available and able to do so and
contained ‘opinions and conclusions on
issues that the court was competently
able to decide on its own’. Former
Premier Kiviet’s confirmatory affidavit
‘could not be allowed to stand because
she could not confirm something that is,
Umbheni
waxhathisa
engagungqi
ngezizathu
zakhe
ezisentloko
kwisibheno
esiphambi
kwethu.
Okokuqala,
kwabangwa
ukuba
uxwebhu
lukaNkulumbuso
oluphendulayo alunakwamkelwa kuba
lwaphawula
ngokungafanelekanga
ngeengcingane
zeNkulumbuso
yangaphambili uKiviet ekubeni ekhona
enokuzithethela, yaye iqulethe iimbono
nezigqibo
ngemiba
inkundla
eyayinokuzigqibela
ngokwayo.
Uxwebhu oluxhasayo lweNkulumbuso
yangaphambili
uKiviet

as a matter of law, inadmissible’. Thus, it
was contended, the appellant’s factual
allegations stood uncontested.

malungavunywa kuba akanakuxhasa
into engavumelekanga emthethweni.
Kungoko
ke
kwabangwa
ukuba
izityholo zombheni aziphikiseki.

[19] The argument proceeded that
former Premier Kiviet acted irrationally
and in a procedurally unfair manner
when she took the final decision because
she failed to invite the appellant to make
representations, had no recourse to the
evidence presented to the Committee and
merely upheld its recommendations
without enquiring further into the matter.
It was further contended that s 140(2) of
the Constitution required the Premier’s
decision to be counter-signed by the
MEC ‘if that decision concerns a
function assigned to’ him, which was not
done here. As indicated, the court a quo
found no merit in all these contentions
and dismissed the application. The
parties were each ordered to bear their
own costs in light of the nature of the
issues raised in the matter.

Yaqhuba ingxoxo yathi owayesakuba
yiNkulumbuso
uKiviet
wenza
ngokungaqiqanga
nangokungekho
mgaqweni ukuthatha kwakhe isigqibo
sokugqibela kuba wasilela ukumema
umbheni
ukuza
kuzithethela,
engabubonanga ubungqina obathiwa
thaca phambi kweKomiti, wasuka
wamkela
izindululo
zayo
engawugocagocanga
nzulu
umba.
Kwathiwa kwakhona iCandelo 140 (2)
loMgaqo Siseko liyanyanzelisa ukuba
isigqibo
seNkulumbuso
sisayinwe
nanguMphathiswa
xa
eso
sigqibo
siqulethe izinto ezingumsebenzi wakhe
–
nto
leyo
ingenzekanga
apha.
Njengoko
sekutshiwo,
inkundla
ayifumananga sihlahla kuwo onke la
mabango, yasichitha isicelo. Icala
ngalinye layalelwa ukuba lizihlawulele

iindleko zetyala ngenxa yemo yemiba
ekubanjenwe ngayo.

[20] I deal first with the application to
strike out the Premier’s affidavits, which
may be given short shrift. It is not clear
to me why it would have been
incompetent for Premier Masualle to
defend the proceedings. The application
was brought, not against former Premier
Kiviet personally, but against the
Premier of the Eastern Cape, which he
was at the material time. He was
therefore obliged to respond to it. He
indicated information in respect of which
he had no personal knowledge. Thus,
former Premier Kiviet’s affidavit, in
which she confirmed Premier Masualle’s
allegations and categorically denied any
irrationality or impropriety in her
decision-making, was filed in that
regard.

Mandiqale
ngokuqwalasela
isicelo
sokukhuphela ngaphandle amaxwebhu
kaNkulumbuso,
sona
sinokukhawuleziseka.
Andicacelwa
kakuhle kukuba kutheni uNkulumbuso
Masualle
wayengenakuliphikisa
elityala.
Isicelo
asenziwanga
ngakuNkulumbuso weMpuma Koloni
wangaphambili
uKiviet,
senziwa
ngakwiNkulumbuso
yePhondo
laseMpuma Koloni awayeyiyo ngelo
xesha.
Wayenyanzelekile
ukuba
aliphendule
ityala.
Wazixela
iinkcukacha awayengenalwazi ngazo
yena buqu. Kungoko wafaka uxwebhu
lwakhe uNkulumbuso wangaphambili
uKiviet, apho wavumelana namabango
kaNkulumbuso Masualle, ekhanyela
ngokuphandle ukuba isigqibo sakhe
sasingaqiqiswanga
kwaye
singafanelekanga.

[21] The confirmatory affidavit reads,
in relevant part:
‘I have read the affidavit deposed to by my
successor, the current Premier of the Eastern
Cape Province, Mr Phumulo Masualle, and I
confirm his affidavit whenever reference is
made to me therein.
I wish to particularly confirm that in arriving
at my decision that forms the subject matter of
the present application I properly and carefully
applied my mind to the matter and to all
relevant information and material before I took
such decision. I accordingly deny any
suggestion that my decision was irrational,
improper
or
unjustified
in
any
way
whatsoever. The decision was properly taken
after due and proper consideration of all
relevant material and any challenge to such
decision is without basis. In the premises I join
in the prayer that it should please this
Honourable Court to dismiss this application
with costs.’

Inxenye echaphazelekayo yoxwebhu
lwesiqinisekiso ifundeka ngolu hlobo:
‘Ndilufundile uxwebhu olwabhalwa
yinkulumbuso
eyangena
ukumka
kwam,
uNkulumbuso
weMpuma
Koloni
uMnu
Phumulo
Masualle
osesihlalweni
ngoku,
kwaye
ndiyavumelana noxwebhu lwakhe kuzo
zonke
iindawo
apho
athetha
ngokubhekiselele
kum.
Ndinga
ndingavuma ngakumbi ukuba ndazikisa
ukucinga ngazo zonke iinkcukacha
ukuze
ndifikelele
kwisigqibo
sam
ekuxoxwa
ngaso
ngoku
kulomba.
Kungoko
ndikhanyela
nayiphi
na
ingcingane
yokuba
isigqibo
sam
sasingaqiqwanga,
singafanelekanga,
singenasizathu
kwaphela.
Isigqibo
ndasithatha
emva
kokuphonononga
nzulu zonke izinto ezingundoqo, ngoko
ke konke okuchasana neenjongo zam
akunasihlahla. Ndiyangenelela kwesi
sicelo, ndibongoza ukuba lenkundla
ibekekileyo
isichithe
esi
sicelo
neendleko zaso.’

[22] In my view, these assertions
adequately
address
the
appellant’s
factual allegations. His reliance on the
judgment in Zuma v DA,4 for the
criticism of the affidavit is misguided.
That decision is distinguished by its own
facts. There, the court took umbrage at
the fact that the decision-maker merely
filed a supplementary confirmatory
affidavit only after the applicant had filed
its replying affidavit.  This was
necessitated by the atrocious nature and
substance of the affidavit of the main
deponent,
which
made
damning
statements, with no factual basis, about
people and spoke of unsubstantiated
investigations and rumours. That is not
what happened in this case. I am satisfied
in all the circumstances that the striking
out application was properly refused.

Ngokokwam
ukubona,
ezi
ntetho
ziwaphendula ngokwaneleyo amabango
ombheni. Waphazama ngokuxhathisa
kwisigwebo sikaZuma emelene neDA.
Eso sigwebo sohlukile ngeenkcukacha.
Kuso, inkundla yacatshukiswa kukuba
umenzi wesigqibo afake uxwebhu
oluxhasayo kade, emva kokuba umfaki
sicelo
selelufakile
uxwebhu
oluphendulayo. Noku kwanyanzeliswa
yimeko eyayimaxongo, nasisqulatho
soxwebhu lombhali, esenza iintetho
ezenyelisayo engenazizathu zakuzenza,
ethetha ngabantu ekuphandwa ngabo
ngenkohlakalo
nangondiva.
Akwenzekanga
oko
kwelityala.
Ndonelisekile ukuba isicelo sokuchitha
amaxwebhu
eNkulumbuso
saliwa
ngokufanelekileyo.

[23] Similarly, I find no merit in the
procedural
fairness
argument.
The
appellant’s complaint that he was not
[23] Kwananjalo,
andifumani
sihlahla
kwingxoxo
ethi
ayilandelwanga
kakuhle
imigaqo.
Uyaphazama

4 Zuma v Democratic Alliance and Others; Acting National Director of Public Prosecution and Another v Democratic
Alliance and Another [2017] ZASCA 146; [2017] 4 ALL SA 726 (SCA); 2018 (1) SACR 123 (SCA); 2018 (1) SA
200 (SCA) para 64.

given a chance to make representations
to the Premier before her final decision is
misconceived. It is so that in terms of s
35(2) of the Eastern Cape Traditional
Leadership and Governance Act 1 of
2017 (the provincial Act), the Premier
‘may request the affected parties to make
written representations’ before taking a
decision on the recommendations of the
Provincial Committee.  The permissive
language of this section, which uses the
word ‘may’, however indicates that a
disputant may not be given a further
hearing
after
the
Committee’s
recommendation as a matter of course.
umbheni kwisikhalazo sakhe sokuba
akazange anikwe thuba lakuzithethela
kwiNkulumbuso ngaphambi kokuba
yenze isigqibo. NgokweCandelo 35 (2)
loMthetho
ka2017
(uMthetho
wasePhondweni)
iNkulumbuso
‘ingawacela amaqela achaphazelekayo
ukuba
azithethele
ngokubhaliweyo’
ngaphambi kokuba kwenziwe isigqibo
ngezindululo
zeKomiti
yePhondo.
Ulwimi olungemandla lwelicandelo,
olusebenzisa
igama
“anga…”,
lukhomba ukuba oxoxa enkundleni
usenokunganikwa
elinye
ithuba
lokumanyelwa emva kokuba iKomiti
indulule,
xa
kungekho
sidingo
sakwenjenjalo.

[24] The
appellant’s
claim
was
thoroughly investigated and ventilated in
an open hearing conducted by the
Committee. That Committee comprised
customary law experts statutorily tasked
to investigate disputes of this very nature
and then make recommendations to the
Premier, as was done here. As Dr
[24] Ibango
lombheni
lacokiswa
ukuphandwa, lashukuxwa kwingxoxo
esesidlangalaleni
eyayibhexeshwa
yiKomiti.
KulooKomiti
kwakukho
iingcaphephe
zomthetho
wemveli,
ezigunyaziswe
ukuba
ziphande
iimbambano ezilolu hlobo, zize zenze
izindululo
zizidlulisele

Mndende stated in her answering
affidavit, the appellant was given an
ample chance, which he fully exploited,
to state his case, and his evidence was on
record when the matter was sent to the
Premier for her decision. Therefore,
there was no need to obtain further
representations from him. The failure by
the Premier to hear the appellant before
taking a decision did not amount to
procedurally
unfair
administrative
action. After all, the enquiry into the
competing claims to the chieftainship
was a factual one and the appellant was
given a fair hearing by the Committee at
the fact-finding stage of the process.
kwiNkulumbuso,
njengoko
kwenziwayo apha. Njengokuba watsho
uGqirha Mndende kuxwebhu lwakhe
lokuphendula, umbheni wanikwa ithuba
elaneleyo,
awalisebenzisayo
futhi
ekwandlaleni ibango lakhe, nobungqina
bakhe bukhona kumaxwebhu engxelo
xa umba wathunyelwa kwiNkulumbuso
ukuba yenze isigqibo sayo. Ngoko ke,
kwakungekho
sizathu
sakufuna
bungqina bungaphezulu kuye. Ukusilela
kukaNkulumbuso
ukuphulaphula
umbheni
ngaphambi
kokuthatha
isigqibo akuthethi kuthi akalandelanga
migaqo, okanye wenze impazamo
yolawulo. Ngapha koko, uphando
lwamabango
akhuphisanayo
ngobukhosi lwalulolwee nkcukacha,
yaye umbheni waxhamla ukumanyelwa
komba
wakhe
yiKomiti
ngexesha
kwakusaqokelelwa iinkcukacha zeli
bango.

[25] As regards the alleged breach of s
140(2) of the Constitution, the first
observation to make is that it being a
Ngokwesityholo sokuba iCandelo 140
(2) loMgaqo Siseko zange lilandelwe,
eyokuqala
impawulo
kukuba

point of law, and contrary to the court a
quo’s view in this regard, it was
permissible for the appellant to raise it
for the first time in his heads of
argument. The fact upon which it
depends – that the Premiers’ written
decision was not countersigned by the
MEC
–
was undisputed
and
its
consideration would, therefore, involve
no unfairness to the respondents.5

njengokuba eli ilinqaku lomthetho,
ndingavumelani
futhi
nokubona
kwenkundla
malunga
nalomba,
kwakuvumelekile
ukuba
umbheni
aliveze
okokuqala
kuxwebhu
lwezihloko zengxoxo zakhe.  Lomba
elinqaku lixhomekeke kuwo – ukuba
isigqibo
seNkulumbuso
zange
sisayinwe
nanguMphathiswa
–
kwakungaphikiswana ngawo, ngoko ke
uphononongo
lwawo
kwakungekhe
lubadlele indlala abaphenduli.

[26] Section
140(1)
requires
a
decision by the Premier of a province to
be in writing if it is taken in terms of
legislation or has legal consequences. In
terms of s 140(2) ‘a written decision by
the Premier must be countersigned by
another Executive Council member if
that decision concerns a function
assigned to that other member’. It is
evident from the plain language of these
provisions
that
the
MEC’s
Icandelo 140(1) linyazelisa ukuba
isigqibo seNkulumbuso yePhondo sibe
sesibhaliweyo
ukuba
sithathwe
ngokusemthethweni,
okanye
sineziphumo
ezinobuzaza
ngokomthetho. NgokweCandelo 140(2)
‘isigqibo esibhaliweyo seNkulumbuso
kufuneka sisayinwe nalelinye ilungu
lesigqeba esilawulayo ukuba isigqibo
eso siqulethe umsebenzi welungu elo’.
Kucace gca kwakulwimi olu lulula

5 Cole v Government of the Union of South Africa 1910 AD 263 at 272-3; Barkhuizen v Napier [2007] ZACC 5; 2007
(7) BCLR 691 (CC); 2007 (5) SA 323 (CC) para 39; Mtokonya v Minister of Police [2017] ZACC 33; 2017 BCLR
1443 (CC); 2018 (5) SA 22 (CC) para 70.

countersignature is necessary only if the
relevant decision concerns a function
assigned to her or him.

lusetyenziswe kwezi zindululo ukuba
ukusayina
koMphathiswa
kufuneka
kuphela xa isigqibo eso sinxulumene
nomsebenzi abelwe wona.

[27] Furthermore, ss 26, 26A(2)(a)
and (3) of the Framework Act and the
provisions and general scheme of the
provincial Act make clear that provincial
powers and functions relating to the
institution of traditional leadership,
including the power to recognize or
appoint the appellant as a traditional
leader, vest in the Premier. And, in terms
of s 88(1) of the provincial Act ‘[t]he
Premier may, subject to such conditions
as he or she may determine in writing,
delegate any powers conferred upon him
or her by this Act to the [Member of the
Executive
Council
responsible
for
Traditional Affairs in the Province],
excluding powers to make Regulations’.
But,
under
subsection
(2)
such
‘delegation does not preclude the
Premier from exercising any such
delegated powers’.
Ngaphezulu, amaCandelo 26, 26A
(2)(a)
kunye
no
(3)
oMthetho-
Sikhokelo,
nezindululo
jikelele
zoMthetho wePhondo acacisa mhlophe
ukuba
amagunya
nemisebenzi
yePhondo
ngokobulawuli
bemveli,
negunya
lokonyula
umbheni
njengenkokheli
yemveli
likwiNkulumbuso. Kwicandelo 88(1)
loMthetho
wePhondo
kuthiwa
‘iNkulumbuso,
ngaphantsi
kweemigomo
eya
kuyibeka
ngokubhaliweyo, ingadlulisela naliphi
igunya kumagunya ewanikwe ngulo
Mthetho [kuMphathiswa], ngaphandle
kwamagunya
okuwisa
imigaqo’.
Kodwa, phantsi kweCandelwana (2)
oko ‘kudlulisela amagunya akuthethi
kuba
iNkulumbuso
ayinakuphinda
iwasebenzise ngokwayo loomagunya’.

[28] Here, as properly conceded by the
appellant’s counsel during argument, the
Premier personally exercised the power
vested in her by the Framework Act and
the provincial Act, to appoint a
traditional leader, and did not delegate
the task to the MEC. There was,
therefore, no need for the MEC to
countersign her decision. The provisions
of s 140(2) of the Constitution do not
apply and the MEC’s failure to
countersign the Premier’s decision does
not render that decision invalid.

Apha,
njengoko
evumile
ngokufanelekileyo ummeli wombheni
ngexesha
leengxoxo,
iNkulumbuso
isebenzise igunya elilelayo elinikwe
nguMthetho-Sikhokelo
noMthetho
wePhondo, ukuba onyule inkokheli,
yaze
ayalidlulisela
eli
gunya
kuMphathiswa. Kungoko kungazange
kubekho
mfuneko
yokuba
uMphathiswa naye asayine kwisigqibo
sakhe. Okuqulethwe kwicandelo 140(2)
loMgaqo Siseko akungeni ndawo apha,
ukungasayini
koMphathiswa
akunafuthe lokusichitha esi sigqibo.

[29] The principal basis of the
appellant’s
review
is
that
the
recommendation of the Commission and
the decision of the Premier based on that
recommendation, were factually wrong.
In general terms, review is concerned
with whether a decision was regular or
irregular, not with whether it was ‘right’
or ‘wrong’. That is the province of
appeals – and no provision is made in the
Isizathu
esingundoqo
sovavanyo-
sigwebo sombheni sesokuba isindululo
seKomishoni,
kwanesigqibo
seNkulumbuso
esixhomekeke
kwisindululo
eso,
bezigwenxa.
Ngokuphangaleleyo,
uvavanyo
luphonononga ukuba isigqibo sithathwe
ngokusemthethweni
na
okanye
akunjalo, hayi ukukhangela ukuba
‘silungile’ okanye ‘sigwenxa’. Leyo

legislation in this case for an appeal.6 In
other words, whether the decision is a
correct decision is not open for
determination on review. The appellant’s
counsel properly conceded that his attack
on the decision was based on it being
wrong. He conceded too that in a review,
a party may not revisit the correctness of
the factual findings of the administrative
decision-maker.

yindima yezibheno, kwaye akukho
nakroba
lomthetho
kweli
bango
lokubhena.
Ngamanye
amazwi,
umcimbi wokuba isigqibo silungile na
awujongwa
kuvavanyo.
Ummeli
wombheni uvume ngokufanelekileyo
ukuba usihlasele isigqibo kuba esithi
asichanekanga. Uvumile kanjalo ukuba
kuvavanyo,
icala
elithile
alikwazi
kuphindela kwiinkcukacha zeziphumo
zogocagoco lomntu owenza izigqibo
ngokolawulo.

[30] Except in a narrow band of
cases,7 of which this case is not one, error
of fact is not a ground of review.8 The
result is that even if it could be said that
the Commission’s factual conclusions
were wrong, that is not a ground of
review.

Ngaphandle
kweembambano
ezimbalwa kakhulu, ube ke lo umba
ungenguwo omnye wazo, ukuphosa
inkcukacha akusosizathu sokuvavanya.
Isiphumo kukuba nokuba kungathiwa
izigqibo zeKomishoni beziwuphosile
umhlola, ayisosizathu sovavanyo eso.

6 See C Hoexter Administrative Law in South Africa 2 ed (2012) at 65; L Baxter Administrative Law (1984) at 305.
See too Mbina-Mthembu v Public Protector [2019] ZAECBHC 4; 2019 3 ALL SA 241 (ECB); 2019 (6) SA 534
(ECB) paras 10-11; Bo-Kaap Civic and Ratepayers Association & Others v City of Cape Town and Others [2020]
ZASCA 15; 2020 2 ALL SA 330 (SCA) paras 70-72.
7 See Dumani v Nair and Another [2012] ZASCA 196; 2013 (2) SA 274 (SCA); 2013 2 ALL SA 125 (SCA) para 30.
8 De Freitas v Somerset West Municipality 1997 (3) SA 1080 (C) at 1084E-H.

[31] The only other basis upon which
wrong factual conclusions may afford a
ground of review is if the Commission’s
factual findings were so out of kilter with
the evidence that they were irrational.9
The Committee’s report shows that it
took evidence from both Mgijima and
Zulu, and that it considered other sources
such as historical records and literature.
It concluded that when everything was
considered, the weight of the evidence
was that the Mgijima line had always
been headmen, and not chiefs, and that
the Zulu line had always been chiefs.
There is thus a rational connection
between the evidence before the Premier
and the decision that she took. There is
also a rational connection between her
decision and the reasons that she gave for
taking it.

Esinye
isizathu
sokuvavanya
ekukuphela
kwaso
xa
isigqibo
singachanekanga
kuxa
izigqibo
zeKomishoni zingahambelani kwaphela
nobungqina
obandlaliweyo,
zade
zangathi
azicingiswanga.
Ingxelo
yeKomiti iyabonisa ukuba buthathiwe
ubungqina
kuMgijima
nakuZulu,
kwaphandwa
nakwabanye
oovimba
abanjengoncwadi lwezembali. Yagqiba
ukuba ekuhloleni konke, ubunzima
bobungqina
bakhomba
ukuba
ooMgijima okoko baba zizibonda,
bengezizo iinkosi, ukanti ooZulu bona
baba ziinkosi kwasekuqaleni. Ngoko ke
kukhona ukuhlangana okwanezisayo
phakathi kobungqina obudandalaziswe
phambi
kweNkulumbuso
kunye
nesigqibo awasithathayo; naphakathi
kwesigqibo sakhe kunye nezizathu
awazinikayo zokwenza isigqibo sakhe.

[32] In the premises, I am satisfied
that the Committee conducted a thorough
Kule migomo ndanele ukuba iKomiti
yaqhuba uphando ngokucokisisa, yaze

9 See, for example, W C Greyling & Erasmus (Pty) Ltd v Johannesburg Local Road Transportation Board and others
1982 (4) SA 427 (A) at 448G-449A; Kotze v Minister of Health & another 1996 (3) BCLR 417 (T) at 425H-426A.

investigation and properly made its
unanimous decision. There is no reason
to believe from the Premier’s written
decision and confirmatory affidavit that
she committed any misdirection in
endorsing
the
Committee’s
recommendation. The court a quo
correctly
dismissed
the
review
application
and
the
appeal
must,
therefore, fail.

yenza
isigqibo
ngokuvumelana
nangokufanelekileyo. Akukho sizathu
sokucinga ukuba kwisigqibo sayo,
kunye
noxwebhu
lwesivumo
esibhaliweyo,
iNkulumbuso
yenza
mpazamo
ithile
ekuhambisaneni
nesindululo
seKomiti.
Inkundla
yasichitha ngokufanelekileyo isicelo
sokuvavanya,
kungoko
kufuneka
isibheno singaphumeleli.

[33] The respondents did not seek
costs in the event that their opposition of
the appeal succeeded. Accordingly, no
costs order will be made.

Abaphenduli
abafunanga
zindleko
ukuba
bayaphumelela
kwisibheno.
Ngoko
ke
akukho
myalelo
uza
kwenziwa ngokweendleko.

[34] The appeal is dismissed.

Isibheno siyachithwa.

________________________
MML Maya
President of the Supreme Court of Appeal

APPEARANCES:

For the Appellant(s):

Adv M G Ndzondo SC
Instructed by:

S N Njiba Attorneys, East London

Madudo Attorneys, Bloemfontein

For the Respondent(s):

Adv N Arendse SC (with Adv N Mayosi)
Instructed by:

State Attorneys, King William’s Town

State Attorneys, Bloemfontein
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY – JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

30 October 2020

STATUS

Immediate

UMgijima emelene neNkulumbuso yePhondo leMpuma Koloni kunye nabanye (949/2018)
[2020] ZASCA 139 (30 kuCanzibe 2020)

Qaphela ukuba esisishwankathelo silungiselelwe ooNondaba asiyonxenye yesigqibo
seNkundla ePhakamileyo yeziBheno.

Namhlanje iNkundla ePhakamileyo yeziBheno ichithe isiBheno
kwisigqibo seSahlulo seNkundla ePhakamileyo eBhisho, esachitha isicelo
sombheni esingobukhosi beBhunga leMveli kaZulu laseSheshegu
eDikeni,
kwiPhondo
leMpuma
Koloni
esasingqina
isigqibo
seNkulumbuso
yePhondo
leMpuma
Koloni,
sibhengeza
ukuba
umphenduli wesine, uMnu Xabiso Zulu, unebango lobundlalifa
ebukhosini kwaye simamkela njengenkosi yeBhunga leMveli kaZulu,
satsho sichitha ibango lombheni kobobukhosi.

Umbheni wacela ngokoMthetho Sikhokelo wobuNkokheli beMveli
noLawulo 4 ka2005 imiyalelo eyile:(a) ukuphononongwa nokuchithwa
kwesosigqibo
seNkulumbuso;
(b)
ukuphononongwa
nokuchithwa
kwesigqibo
seKomiti
yePhondo
leMpuma
Koloni
yeKomishoni
yamaBango ngobuNkokheli beMveli esihlalo wayo ingumphenduli
wesithathu, uGqirha Nokuzola Mndende, apho kwandululwa ukuba
lichithwe ibango lombheni kubukhosi obu; kunye (c) nesibhengezo sokuba
umbheni avunywe njengenkosi yeBhunga leMveli kaZulu laseSheshegu.

LeNkundla
ifumanise
ukuba
umbheni
akabonisanga
mhlaba
wakuphonononga ngokoMthetho wokuKhuthaza ubuLungisa kuLawulo
wesi3 ka2000 satsho isibheno sachithwa.