Mphephu v Mphephu-Ramabulana and Others

The appellant, Ms Masindi Clementine Mphephu, challenged the identification and subsequent recognition of the first respondent, Regent Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana, as King of the Vhavenda Traditional Community. Her father, Chief Dimbanyika Mphephu, ascended the throne in 1994 and appointed the first respondent as his Ndumi. After Chief Dimbanyika’s death in 1997, the Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family Council identified the first respondent in 1998, and again in 2010, as successor. In 2010, following a determination by the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims that a single Vhavenda kingship vested in the Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family, the eighth respondent identified the first respondent as king. In September 2012, the President formally recognised him under s 9 of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003. The appellant instituted review proceedings to set aside both the identification and recognition, alleging non-compliance with customary law, gender discrimination, and unlawfulness. The High Court dismissed the application on points in limine, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with no order as to costs. The High Court’s order was set aside. The decisions of the Royal Family Council identifying the first respondent and of the President recognising him as King of the Vhavenda were declared unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid and were reviewed and set aside. The matter was referred back to the Limpopo Division of the High Court for further adjudication on the merits before another judge, with specified issues of customary law to be referred to the National and Limpopo Houses of Traditional Leaders for advice. Withdrawal of the first respondent’s certificate of recognition was stayed pending final determination.

This case is significant for clarifying the reviewability of traditional leadership decisions under PAJA, affirming judicial jurisdiction over customary law disputes, and reinforcing the constitutional obligation to develop customary law in line with equality and gender transformation. It underscores that presidential recognition of traditional leaders must be based on lawful identification processes and non-discriminatory criteria.