Amafana-nkosi Royal Families v Princess Magadla and Others

A court order was granted by default on 17 May 2022 in favor of Princess Magadla against Tanduxolo Magadla, the Premier of the Eastern Cape, the MEC for Co-Operative Governance and Traditional Affairs, and the Manguzela Tribal Authority. This order effectively directed the removal of a traditional leader. An application for rescission of this default judgment was launched on 31 January 2025. On 4 June 2025, five court days before the hearing of the rescission application, Amafana-nkosi Royal Families ("Amafa-nankosi") sought to intervene in the rescission proceedings. Amafa-nankosi claimed to be a royal family as defined in the Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act, No 1 of 2017 ("the Act"), and argued that the court order of 17 May 2022 adversely affected the appointment of a traditional leader in their jurisdiction without their involvement. However, it became apparent that Amafa-nankosi was a breakaway or dissatisfied group within the broader Magadla Royal Family, comprising individual members of that family rather than being a distinct royal family itself.

• Whether Amafa-nankosi satisfied the requirements for leave to intervene under Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules of Court
• Whether Amafa-nankosi had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings
• Whether Amafa-nankosi constituted a 'royal family' as defined in the Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act, No 1 of 2017
• Whether individual members of a royal family can constitute a separate royal family for legal purposes
• Against whom costs should be ordered when an applicant lacks legal personality

The application for leave to intervene was dismissed. Mr Mandla Galo and Mr Lulama Jojo were directed to pay the costs of the application personally.

1. Under Rule 12 of the Uniform Rules of Court, an intervening party must demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the proceedings. 2. Under the Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act, No 1 of 2017, there can only be one royal family within a traditional community, as defined in section 1 of the Act. 3. Individual members of a royal family, even when organized as a group, do not constitute a separate royal family distinct from the broader recognized royal family to which they belong. 4. A royal family has a distinct legal personality with capacity to sue and be sued in its own name, separate from its individual members. 5. Where an applicant lacks legal personality and cannot be identified as a legal entity, costs may be ordered against the identifiable individuals who instituted the proceedings on its behalf.

The court observed that Amafa-nankosi appeared to be a "breakaway or dissatisfied group" within the Magadla Royal Family, and noted that differences in views and opinions among members do not extinguish their homogeneity to their royal family. The court also commented that the plurality in the naming of "Amafana-nkosi Royal Families" (using "families" in plural) does not conform with the statutory definition which contemplates a singular royal family. The court remarked that there was no basis in law for Princess Magadla to have joined Amafa-nankosi in the original proceedings as they are not a legally recognized royal family, and there is no obligation to join individual members of a royal family when the royal family itself has distinct legal personality.

This case clarifies important principles regarding the definition and legal status of royal families under the Eastern Cape Traditional Leadership and Governance Act, No 1 of 2017. It establishes that there can only be one royal family within a traditional community as recognized by the Act, and that individual members or breakaway groups within a royal family cannot constitute a separate royal family for legal purposes. The case also illustrates the application of intervention principles in the context of traditional leadership disputes and confirms that a royal family has a distinct legal personality separate from its individual members. The judgment provides guidance on costs orders where an applicant lacks legal personality, holding that costs can be ordered against identifiable individuals who instituted proceedings on behalf of an unrecognized entity.