Mphephu-Ramabulana and Another v Mphephu and Others

The case concerns a long-running dispute within the Mphephu-Ramabulana Royal Family over who is entitled, under Venda customary law, to occupy the Venda kingship. In 2010, the Royal Family Council identified Khosikhulu Toni Peter Mphephu-Ramabulana as the suitable person to ascend the throne. In 2012, the President of South Africa recognised him as King of the VhaVenda community under the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act. Masindi Clementine Mphephu, a princess of the royal family, challenged both the identification and the presidential recognition, asserting that she was entitled to be recognised as Queen. She instituted review proceedings in the High Court seeking to have the decisions set aside as unlawful and unconstitutional. The High Court dismissed her application on various preliminary grounds. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeal overturned key preliminary findings, held that the identification and recognition decisions were reviewable administrative action, and set them aside for non-compliance with statutory requirements and PAJA. The SCA remitted the matter to the High Court to determine unresolved factual disputes of customary law and stayed the setting aside of the recognition pending finalisation. The applicants then sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court more than a year late.

Condonation in the main application was refused and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Condonation and leave to cross-appeal by the first respondent were granted, and the cross-appeal succeeded only in respect of costs, resulting in amended costs orders against the President. The President was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs in the Constitutional Court.

The judgment underscores the Constitutional Court’s strict approach to compliance with procedural time limits and clarifies that excessive delays without cogent explanation will not be condoned, even in matters raising constitutional and customary-law issues. It reinforces that traditional leadership disputes involving state recognition are subject to administrative-law review under PAJA and that courts retain constitutional authority to adjudicate customary-law disputes. The case also illustrates judicial sensitivity to preventing abuse of court processes that delay the resolution of disputes affecting communities.