By Anton van Zyl and Kaizer Nengovhela
The Gogobole royal family need to go back to the drawing board. They must now start afresh with the process of identifying and appointing a traditional leader. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) set aside a 2020 ruling of the Limpopo High Court last week, which interdicted Matodzi Annah Magwala from performing duties as the interim headwoman of Gogobole.
The SCA ruled in favour of Magwala but was not very sympathetic towards any of the parties and reckoned the correct procedures were not followed when trying to resolve the dispute. "The High Court and the full court should not have dealt with the merits of the case. This is a matter that should have been referred to the Premier in terms of section12 of the Limpopo Act for investigation purposes," the judgment reads.
The case that served before the SCA has its origins in a dispute that started shortly after 2008, when Matodzi Annah Magwala started to act as caretaker headwoman at Gogobole. She is the daughter of the late Vho-Matamela Ndwammbi Ramabulana, who was appointed as headwoman after the death of her brother, Nthatheni Petrus Ramabulana, in 1986.
When Ms Ndwammbi Ramabulana died, her daughter assumed that she would be the successor, but apparently the royal family (or sections thereof) did not agree. During oral arguments in court, Ms Magwala was allegedly not identified as the headwoman of Gogobole Village because she was not a descendant of or born of the Ramabulana lineage, but a Ramadzuwa by birth. (Her mother was married to Mr Tshikumbu Ramadzuwa.)
The Gogobole royal family, along with Chief Rudzani Harold Sinthumule and Nyamukamadi Mukondi Mukhuba (the makhadzi), told the court that Mr Simon Maluta Ramabulana was identified as headman to replace Ms Ndwammbi. Unfortunately, he died before he could be recognised by the Premier. Following Mr Maluta's death, the royal family identified his minor son, Mr Percy Tshifhiwa Ramabulana, to succeed him. Because he was a minor, Ms Mukhuba was identified as regent to act in his position.
This version was disputed by Ms Magwala, who argued that Ms Mukhuba did not want to take up the role of interim leader as she feared that she might be killed. The task of serving as acting headwoman then fell on her (Ms Magwala's) shoulders.
The three SCA judges had to listen to the different opinions as to who the real leaders of the royal family are. Mr Lawrence Makhado Sinthumule, the chairman of the Sinthumule Tribal Council, told the court that Ms Mukhuba, Mr Nyadzeni Ramabulana and Mr Mbulaheni Ramabulana were legitimate members of the royal family. Mr Takalani Albert Mubva, who testified on behalf of Ms Magwala, told the court that he was the chairperson of the royal family.
"It is apparent from the pleadings and the evidence led at the trial that at the core of this matter is whether Ms Magwala was properly identified as the next headwoman of Gogobole Village in terms of its customs or customary laws. Aligned to this is who were the legitimate members of the royal family, whose function it was to identify the successor to the late headwoman, Ms Ndwammbi," said acting SCA judge Zeenat Carelse in the ruling.
The SCA ruled that the Limpopo Division of the High Court in Polokwane had erred by making findings on the merits of the dispute, ruling that Ms Magwala was not qualified to succeed her mother, because of the customs and the relevant customary laws of the community. "It accordingly dismissed Ms Magwala's appeal against the High Court judgment," it states.
The SCA judges, however, reckoned that a dispute clearly existed as far as the identification of a new leader was concerned, which required the application of customary law and customs of the community. "Once identification is disputed, there are dispute mechanisms which the parties should utilise before approaching the courts," said judge Carelse.
The Limpopo Traditional Leadership and Institutions Act 6 of 2005 sets out the procedures that should be followed when filling a vacancy for headman or headwoman. The SCA pointed out that no evidence existed that the royal family or Ms Magwala had informed the Premier of the dispute and set the dispute mechanisms in place.
As far as the costs incurred for all the court cases are concerned, the judges also showed little sympathy for the various parties. "The Gogobole community has been without a headwoman or headman since the death of Ms Ndwammbi in 2008. In my view, the delay in resolving the disputes can be laid at the door of both parties. For this reason, both parties should bear their own costs," the ruling states.
When approached for comment on Wednesday, the chairperson of the Sinthumule Tribal Council, Mr Makhado Sinthumule, did not want to elaborate on the issue and said such matters should not be discussed in the media. He said that the issue should be discussed during a gathering of the relevant members of the Gogobole royal family. He said that no single individual person appointed a new chief as this was the responsibility of the royal family.
Sinthumule explained that, according to Venda culture, the chieftaincy (Vhuhosi) is the property of the family and the chief is the "manager" of that property. "The appointment of the successor will thus be the responsibility of the royal family," he said. Sinthumule further said that the royal family had already submitted the name of the rightful candidate to the office of the Department of Cooperative Governance Human Settlement &Traditional Affairs (CoGHSTA) and the office would forward the name to the Premier's office.
The spokesperson for Ms Annah Magwala, Mr Takalani Mubva, said that he could not comment on the matter, because it had been referred back to the royal family and CoGHSTA to conduct a hearing. He promised to comment after the royal family's meeting had taken place. He also said that he was surprised to hear that the Sinthumule Tribal Council had already submitted the name of a successor to CoGHSTA.