Tshivhulana Royal Family v Netshivhulana

The dispute arose after the death of the headman of Tshivhulana Village and conflicting claims regarding succession in terms of customary law. The Tshivhulana Royal Family appointed Mr Davhana Elias Mulaudzi as acting headman, contending that the deceased left no heir from a ‘dzekiso’ (great) wife. The respondent, the deceased’s firstborn son, claimed succession rights and disputed this position. After internal disagreements between the Tshivhulana Royal Family and the senior Netshimbupfe Royal Family, the Premier of Limpopo withdrew Mr Mulaudzi’s recognition and recognised the respondent as headman. Aggrieved, the Tshivhulana Royal Family launched a PAJA review application challenging the Premier’s decision. The High Court dismissed the application on the basis that internal remedies under section 21 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act had not been exhausted.

The appeal was upheld. The High Court order upholding the point in limine was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the exhaustion point and reserving costs. The matter was remitted to the High Court to proceed in accordance with the Constitutional Court’s judgment. The respondent was ordered to pay the costs in the Constitutional Court.

The judgment provides authoritative clarity on the scope of section 21 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act and its relationship with PAJA. It confirms that internal customary dispute-resolution mechanisms do not bar judicial review of a Premier’s administrative decision recognising a traditional leader. This promotes legal certainty and access to courts in disputes involving traditional leadership recognition.