The President of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Prince Mbonisi Bhekithemba ka Bhekuzulu and Others

Following the death of King Zwelithini ka Bhekuzulu in March 2021, a dispute arose regarding the succession to the Zulu throne. King Zwelithini had nominated his wife, Queen Mantfombi Dlamini-Zulu, as regent, and before her death she nominated her son, Prince Misuzulu ka Zwelithini Zulu, as successor in accordance with Zulu customary law. On 14 May 2021, a meeting of the Zulu Royal Family, chaired by Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi and attended by representatives of various royal houses, identified Prince Misuzulu as King. A rival faction, led by Princess Thembi Ndlovu, later purported to identify Prince Simakade ka Zwelithini Zulu as King. Multiple court applications followed. Earlier litigation in the Pietermaritzburg High Court dismissed challenges to the succession process. On 16 March 2022, relying on those judgments and the Royal Family’s resolutions, the President recognised Prince Misuzulu as King under s 8 of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019. Prince Mbonisi and Prince Simakade thereafter brought review applications in the Gauteng Division of the High Court challenging both the Royal Family’s identification decision and the President’s recognition decision. The High Court held that the identification issue was res judicata but set aside the President’s recognition and remitted the matter for investigation. The President and Prince Misuzulu appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal by the President and Prince Misuzulu was upheld. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing both review applications brought under case numbers 19891/2022 and 38670/2022, with costs. The cross-appeals by Prince Mbonisi and Prince Simakade were dismissed with costs.

This judgment clarifies the interaction between customary-law succession disputes and the statutory role of the President under the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act. It confirms that where identification of a traditional leader has already been adjudicated by a competent court, subsequent review attempts may be barred, and the President is not obliged to invoke investigative mechanisms under s 8(4) in the absence of unresolved disputes or pending appeals. The case reinforces legal certainty in traditional leadership succession and delineates the limits of judicial intervention in customary processes.