Sigidla Ndumo v The Minister of Arts and Culture Nomine Officio and Others

The appellant, Sigidla Ndumo, appealed against dismissal of his review application challenging two decisions by the Minister of Arts and Culture (first respondent) made under the South African Geographical Names Council Act 118 of 1998. The decisions were: (1) approval of changing the town name from Grahamstown to Makhanda, and (2) rejection of the appellant's objection to the name change. The appellant was a long-time Grahamstown resident and co-coordinator of the Keep Grahamstown Grahamstown (KGG) campaign. Between 2007-2013, three consultative processes showed significant opposition to any name change, with snap polls indicating approximately 80% opposition and approximately 5,000 signatures collected against the change. In 2014, two officials from the Department of Arts and Culture (Mali and Nonzube) submitted new applications proposing the name Makhanda. A new consultative process commenced in 2015. The KGG was invited to stakeholder meetings on 16 September 2015 and public hearings on 11 February 2016 but declined to attend, arguing the consultation had already occurred in 2007-2013. The public hearing on 11 February 2016 was attended by 165 persons (disputed by appellant as only 84). The Provincial Geographical Names Committee (PGNC) recommended the name change to the South African Geographical Names Council (second respondent), which advised the Minister accordingly. The Minister approved the name change on 5 June 2018, published in Government Gazette on 29 June 2018.

• Whether adequate consultation with communities and stakeholders took place as required by the South African Geographical Names Council Act 118 of 1998
• Whether the Minister's decisions were reviewable under section 6 of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) for failure to consider relevant considerations or considering irrelevant considerations
• Whether the 2007-2013 consultative processes should have been considered in the new application process commenced in 2014
• Whether failure to consult with the local municipality (Makana Municipality) constituted a fatal procedural irregularity
• Whether failure to advise the public of the right to complain within one month of the decision constituted a reviewable irregularity
• Whether the Minister's decision was based on material errors of fact rendering it irrational under PAJA
• Whether there was bias in the name change process
• Whether the application for the name change lacked sufficient detail and reasons
• Whether the different spellings of the municipality name (Makana) and town name (Makhanda) breached standardisation requirements

The appeal was dismissed. No order as to costs.

A new application for a geographical name change under the South African Geographical Names Council Act 118 of 1998 constitutes a separate and independent process not bound by the outcomes of previous consultation processes. Adequate consultation as required by the Act means providing stakeholders with reasonable notice and opportunity to participate in consultative meetings, not achieving consensus or majority support. Where stakeholders are properly invited to participate in consultation processes that comply with the Act's requirements but deliberately decline to attend, they cannot subsequently challenge the decision on grounds of inadequate consultation. The consultation requirement is procedural, not substantive—it requires a reasonable opportunity to be heard, not a particular outcome. Administrative decisions on name changes are reviewable under PAJA only where there are material procedural irregularities that affect the outcome, or where relevant considerations are ignored or irrelevant considerations are taken into account. Technical or minor procedural defects that do not affect the substantive decision are not grounds for review.

The court made several non-binding observations: (1) It would have been ideal for the KGG to participate from the outset of the new process to scrutinize stakeholder details and representation; (2) The fact that government department officials applied for the name change "opens the door for possible political manipulation" but such manipulation must be proved with evidence, not mere suspicion; (3) Strong emotive language in the context of contentious name change disputes should not be given undue weight as all parties are entitled to express their views; (4) The appellant's later support for the alternative name "iRhini" was inconsistent with his original opposition to any name change; (5) While there were historical inaccuracies in the Minister's statements about Colonel Graham, this did not affect the procedural validity when both parties ultimately agreed the town was named after the colonial military figure; (6) The different spelling issue (Makana/Makhanda) "could easily be rectified by an amendment of the spelling of the name of the Makana Municipality without any difficulty." The judge also apologized for the late delivery of judgment for undisclosed personal reasons.

This case clarifies the consultation requirements under the South African Geographical Names Council Act 118 of 1998 and the application of PAJA to geographical name changes. It establishes that: (1) each application for a name change constitutes a separate process, and prior unsuccessful consultative processes do not prevent subsequent applications; (2) adequate consultation requires reasonable opportunity to be heard, not necessarily achieving consensus or majority support; (3) stakeholders who deliberately decline to participate in properly convened consultative processes cannot later complain about lack of consultation; (4) wide publication of meetings through multiple media channels satisfies notification requirements even if attendance is relatively low; (5) minor procedural irregularities that do not affect the substantive outcome (such as failure to notify of complaint rights) are not grounds for review; (6) allegations of bias require evidence beyond suspicion; and (7) the standardisation requirement is satisfied upon gazette publication and does not require perfect alignment of related geographical names at the time of approval. The case demonstrates judicial deference to administrative decisions where proper procedures are followed, even on controversial issues involving transformation of colonial-era place names.