Joyina Jim Mahlangu and Sokhulumi Royal Council v Mkhambi Petros Mahlangu and Others

The first appellant, Mr Joyina Jim Mahlangu, and first respondent, Mr Mkhambi Petros Mahlangu, disputed who was the rightful senior traditional leader of the Sokhulumi community of the AmaNdebele tribe. The first respondent had previously been the senior traditional leader but was removed following a judicial enquiry into allegations of misconduct. In January 1993, the first appellant was appointed as acting traditional leader by the Chief Minister. In 2011, the first respondent claimed before the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims that he was the rightful traditional leader. The Commission determined the dispute in favour of the first respondent. The second respondent (MEC for Local Government and Housing - Gauteng) then rescinded the first appellant's acting appointment and appointed the first respondent. The appellants sought to review this decision in the High Court. Hughes J dismissed the review application with costs. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal was granted. However, the first appellant died on 18 April 2016, a few days before the notice of appeal was lodged. The appellants' attorneys informed the respondents of this death on 18 November 2016, after heads of argument were delivered.

• Whether an appeal should be dismissed where the first appellant has died and the judgment or order sought would have no practical effect or result within the meaning of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013
• Whether the second appellant (Sokhulumi Royal Council) had standing and capacity to continue the appeal
• Whether costs of the appeal should be awarded against the appellants' attorneys de bonis propriis

1. The appeal was dismissed in terms of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. 2. The appellants' attorneys, Messrs Zehir Omar Attorneys, were ordered to pay the costs of the appeal de bonis propriis (from their own pocket).

An appellate court may dismiss an appeal in terms of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 where the issues are of such a nature that the decision sought will have no practical effect or result. Where the principal relief sought in an appeal is personal to a party (such as reinstatement to a traditional leadership position) and that party dies before the appeal is heard, the appeal becomes moot and must be dismissed. The cause of action for personal relief, which is not transmissible, is extinguished by the death of the party. A party seeking to participate in traditional leadership dispute proceedings must establish: (1) a clearly articulated interest in the relief sought; (2) legal standing and capacity to sue or be sued; and (3) proper authorization to be party to the proceedings. An appellate court retains inherent discretion to award costs against attorneys de bonis propriis where they persist in prosecuting a clearly moot appeal despite warnings from the court.

The court observed that appellate courts often have to deal with congested rolls and therefore do not give advice gratuitously, speculate or theorize. The court noted that it is the practice of the Supreme Court of Appeal that parties may not file new material after the hearing of an appeal without leave of the court, emphasizing that there must be finality in litigation and finality comes for litigants once the appeal has been heard. The court deprecated the conduct of the appellants' attorneys in filing additional papers seeking to join 12 new applicants after the hearing, despite being told their request to hold the judgment in abeyance was declined. The court indicated that this was not an appropriate case to exercise any discretion to consider the merits of the appeal even absent a live issue between the parties, and there was no suggestion that the case raised any discrete legal issue of public importance that would warrant such consideration.

This case provides important guidance on the application of section 16(2)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which empowers appellate courts to dismiss appeals that have become moot. It affirms the long-standing principle that courts of appeal decide real, live disputes and do not give advisory opinions or resolve abstract, academic or hypothetical questions. The judgment reinforces that personal rights (such as the right to hold a specific traditional leadership position) do not transmit to heirs or other parties upon death. The case also demonstrates the court's willingness to exercise its inherent discretion to award costs against attorneys personally where they persist in prosecuting clearly moot appeals despite warnings from the court. This serves as a warning to legal practitioners to carefully consider mootness issues and to act responsibly in advising clients and prosecuting appeals. The judgment also clarifies requirements for standing in traditional leadership disputes, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of legal capacity and authorization to participate in proceedings.