In the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: CCT3/07 In the matter between: TINYIKO LWANDLAMUNI PHILLIA MAMITWA SHILUBANA First Applicant WALTER MBIZANA MBHALATI Second Applicant DISTRICT CONTROL OFFICER Third Applicant THE PREMIER: LIMPOPO PROVINCE Fourth Applicant MEC FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HOUSING Fifth Applicant HOUSE FOR TRADITIONAL LEADERS Sixth Applicant CHRISTINA SOMISA MAMITWA Seventh Applicant MATHEWS T N MAMITWA Eighth Applicant BEN SHIPALANA Ninth Applicant ERNEST RISABA Tenth Applicant STONE NGOBENI Eleventh Applicant and SIDWELL MAMITWA Respondent APPLICANTS WRITTEN ARGUMENT Page 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ITEM PAGE NO. 1. Introduction 3 2. Factual Background 6 3. Legislative Framework 13 4. Status of Customary Law 18 5. The Principle of Male Primogeniture 25 6. Comparative Treatment of Succession to Traditional Leadership 27 7. Application of the Law to the Facts 31 8. The Findings of the Court A Quo 35 9. Questions Raised in the Court’s Directions 40 10. Application for Condonation 47 11. Application for Leave to Appeal 48 12. Appropriate Relief and Conclusion 49 13. Authorities 53 14. Applicants Chronology of Relevant Events 55 13. Copy of Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment 57 Page 3 INTRODUCTION 1. On 1 December 2006, the Supreme Court of Appeal (“the court a quo”) delivered judgment in the above matter dismissing with costs the Applicants appeal. This is an application for condonation for the late filing of the Applicants application for leave to appeal, and in the event that the condonation is granted, an application for leave to appeal the whole judgment and order of the court a quo, and if that is granted, to argue the merits of the appeal. 2. On 14 March 2007, the Court issued revised directions (“the Court’s directions”) in this matter that the written argument must include argument on the merits of the appeal, and must also address the following issues: 2.1 Does the Royal family have the authority to develop the customs and traditions of the Valoyi community so as to outlaw gender discrimination in the succession to traditional leadership?; 2.2 In the course of developing the customs and the traditions of a community, does the Royal family have the authority to restore the position of traditional leadership to the House from which it Page 4 was removed by reason of gender discrimination, even if this discrimination occurred prior to the coming into operation of the Constitution?; 2.3 Are the provisions of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act, 2003 (“the Framework Act”) applicable to these proceedings?; 2.4 If the provisions of the Framework Act are applicable, is the dispute relating to the restoration of traditional leadership, the kind of dispute that ought to be dealt with by the Commission as required by Section 21(1)(b) read with Section 21(1)(b) of the Framework Act? 3. In these written submissions, we: 3.1 deal with the factual background to the dispute; 3.2 address the relevant legislative framework; 3.3 consider the proper context within which the status of customary law is to be approached; 3.4 discuss the principle of primogeniture; Page 5 3.5 refer to comparative treatment of succession to traditional leadership; 3.6 apply the law to the facts in this matter; 3.7 critically look at the findings of the court a quo and the reasons thereof; 3.8 make submissions relating to questions raised in the Court’s Directions; 3.9 attend to the application for condonation, as well as the leave to appeal, and finally, 3.10 argue the appropriate relief and conclusion. Page 6 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4. The following facts have been found by the court of first instance, as well as the court a quo to be correct, that: 4.1 for five generations, the chieftainship of the Valoyi community was patrilineal and according to primogeniture;1 4.2 the first of the Hosis was a Hosi Mamitwa, who was married to four wives. Two of his children from the first wife were females and the other two, males. It is unknown what became of the two sons;2 4.3 Hosi Mamitwa was succeeded by Hosi Mahwahwa, who was the eldest son from his second wife;3 This was as a result of the two sons from the first wife having not returned from the war; 1 Record, Vol 1, Founding Affidavit, pg 11 – 12, para 3; Vol 7, pg 605, line 17 – 26, pg 606, line 1 – 15; Judgment of the court of first instance; Judgment of the court a quo para 5 2 Record, Vol 8, pg 674 & 675; Judgment of the court of first instance, pg 605; Judgment of the court a quo para 5 3 Record, Vol 7 pg 605, lines 21 – 24, Judgment of the court of first instance: Vol.7. p.605, lines 16 to 23; Judgment of the court a quo, para 5 Page 7 4.4 Hosi Mahwahwa also married four wives. From his first marriage he sired six children. The first was female, second and fifth males. Upon his death, he was succeeded by Hosi Mahlebezulu who was second in order of birth but the first male from his first wife;4 4.5 at the death of Hosi Mahlebezulu Mamitwa, Hosi Rufus Mamitwa who was a brother to Hosi Mahlebezulu Mamitwa acted as a Hosi since Hosi Fofoza Mamitwa was a minor. The latter was the second born child (the first being a female) but eldest male from the marriage of Hosi Mahlebezulu Mamitwa to his first wife;5 4.6 when Hosi Fofoza Mamitwa came of age, he took over the chieftainship on 26 May 1948. He reigned until his death on 24 February 1968. He was the father to the first respondent. He was also the elder brother of Hosi Richard Mamitwa (the father to the applicant);6 4 Record, Founding Affidavit Vol 1 para 3, line 1 -8; Answering Affidavit, para 17 pg 88; Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 605-606, lines 25-32; Judgment of the court a quo, para 5 5 Record, Founding Affidavit, Vol 1 para 3.1.1, pg 11; Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 606, line 25-32; Judgment of the court a quo, para 5. 6 Record, Vol 1, Founding Affidavit, para 3.1.1, pg 11, lines 12-15; Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 606, lines 7-15; Judgment of the court a quo, para 5. Page 8 4.7 during the illness of Hosi Fofoza Mamitwa, Hosi Richard Mamitwa was appointed acting chairman of the Valoyi Tribal Authority on 25 January 1968. He was later appointed as acting Hosi on 26 March 1968. He was finally appointed a Hosi on 24 October 1968;7 4.8 on 22 December 1996 there was a meeting of the Royal family attended, amongst others, by the late Chief Richard Mamitwa, the Respondent and the First Applicant;8 4.9 various resolutions were adopted including conferring chieftainship of the Valoyi to the First Applicant because she is the first born of chief Fofoza Mamitwa together with his wife Queen Favazi. The Council unanimously accepted that resolution;9 7 Record, Founding Affidavit para 3.3, pg 12; Answering Affidavit, para 19, pg. 89, Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol. 7, pg 606, lines 11-15, Judgment of the court a quo, para 5 8 Record, Founding Affidavit, para 5, pg 14, Answering Affidavit, para 21, pg 92; Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 608, lines 1-6; Judgment of the court a quo, para 5. 9 Record, Founding Affidavit, paras 5.1 and 5.2 pg. 15; Answering Affidavit, para 21 pg. 92; Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 608, lines 6-10; Judgment of the court a quo, para 6 Page 9 4.10 the Council also revealed that though in the past it was not permissible by the Valoyis that a female child be heir, in terms of democracy and the Republic of South Africa Constitution, it is now permissible that a female child be heir since she is also equal to a male child;10 4.11 the Council further resolved “the matter of chieftainship and regency will be conducted according to the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa and according to the acceptance of the Commission”;11 4.12 the First Applicant did not want Chief Richard Mamitwa removed and requested that he wait for her and continue until she finishes with her responsibilities in Parliament. Chief Richard Mamitwa died on 1 October 2001. The Royal Family requested the Commission for traditional leadership to support the resolution;12 10 Record, Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 608, lines 13-17 11 Record, Founding Affidavit, parag 5.3, pg 15, Answering Affidavit, para 21, pg 92, Answering Affidavit, para 32, pg 97, Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 608, lines 17-25, Judgment of the court a quo, para 6, pg 4 12 Record, Founding Affidavit, parag 5.3, pg 15, Answering Affidavit, para 21, pg 92, Answering Affidavit, para 32, pg 97, Judgment of the court of first instance, Vol 7, pg 608, lines 17-25, Judgment of the court a quo, para 6, pg 4 Page 10 4.13 Chief Richard Mamitwa, in writing, invited the Chief Magistrate, Ritavi District, to attend the meeting of the Royal Council on 17 July 1997 and in the presence of the Chief Magistrate and 26 witnesses, Chief Richard Mamitwa acknowledged, in writing, that the First Applicant is the child of the eldest wife of Chief Fofoza Mamitwa and is now heiress to the Valoyi chieftainship.