Molosi and Others v King Phahlo Royal Family and Others

The case concerned a long-standing dispute over the kingship of AmaMpondomise and, specifically, which family constituted the legitimate royal family entitled under s 9 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 to nominate a king or queen. Two rival families, the Dosini Royal Family and the Phahlo Royal Family, each claimed to be the rightful royal family and made competing nominations to the President: the Dosini family nominated Ms Ntombenkonzo Maseti as queen, while the Phahlo family nominated Mr Luzuko Matiwane as king. The dispute followed earlier litigation in which the AmaMpondomise kingship, stripped by colonial authorities in 1904, had been declared by the High Court (Brooks J) to have existed and to be reinstated. The High Court subsequently declared the Dosini family not to be the legitimate royal family and interdicted it from making nominations, directing the President to consider the Phahlo family’s nomination. While appeals were pending, the President recognised Mr Matiwane as king under s 9 of the Act, a fact not disclosed to the Full Court or initially to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

The judgment reaffirms the doctrine of mootness in South African appellate practice and the application of s 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act. It underscores that appellate courts will not decide disputes that have been overtaken by events and lack practical effect, even in politically or culturally sensitive matters such as traditional leadership. The case also highlights the importance of full and frank disclosure to courts, particularly in appellate proceedings, and serves as a warning that failures in this regard may affect costs.