QUESTION 1
The differing approaches followed by the majority and the minority judgments in in
Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance contrast in that the majority judgement
focuses on interpretation of statutes while the minority judgement’s approach is
inclined to a living customary law.1
The majority judgement prescribes that immediate implementation of the
determination of the commission means that the president must perform the
appointment immediately, leaving no room for considering another candidate who had
been identified by the royal family. The judgement found upheld the the decision of the
Commission, after it had taken into account customary law and customs, was that
Zanozuko was the one entitled to be the king and in effect that Mpondombini was not
entitled to be the king. That decision of the Commission has not been set aside. That
being the case, as long as the decision of the Commission stands, the first applicant
cannot be entitled to be king or queen either. The problem with the Act in this regard
is its creation of two institutions, the commission and the royal family, the role of both
of which is to find the suitable candidate for the same position a terrible recipe for
conflict at the best of times.2
The court gave the power to decide to the Commission, which announced its decision
that amaMpondo aseQaukeni met the requirements to be a kingship or queenship,
Zanozuko lodged with the Commission a claim that he was entitled to be the king of
amaMpondo aseQaukeni. The whole royal family got to know about the claim.
Mpondombini certainly got to know about it because he subsequently contested
Zanozuko’s claim and maintained that he was the one entitled to be the king. This
dispute about who was entitled to be the king of amaMpondo aseQaukeni was then
resolved by the Commission after it had heard evidence adduced by both sides.3
Consequently, in Sigcau the court merely solved the legal problem by declaring the
winning candidate in accordance to statute, but did not resolve the socio-legal dispute
1
Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance &Traditional Affairs 2018 (12) BCLR
1525 (CC)
2
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 as amended by
Act 23 of 2009.
3
Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance &Traditional Affairs 2018 (12) BCLR
1525 (CC)
The differing approaches followed by the majority and the minority judgments in in
Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance contrast in that the majority judgement
focuses on interpretation of statutes while the minority judgement’s approach is
inclined to a living customary law.1
The majority judgement prescribes that immediate implementation of the
determination of the commission means that the president must perform the
appointment immediately, leaving no room for considering another candidate who had
been identified by the royal family. The judgement found upheld the the decision of the
Commission, after it had taken into account customary law and customs, was that
Zanozuko was the one entitled to be the king and in effect that Mpondombini was not
entitled to be the king. That decision of the Commission has not been set aside. That
being the case, as long as the decision of the Commission stands, the first applicant
cannot be entitled to be king or queen either. The problem with the Act in this regard
is its creation of two institutions, the commission and the royal family, the role of both
of which is to find the suitable candidate for the same position a terrible recipe for
conflict at the best of times.2
The court gave the power to decide to the Commission, which announced its decision
that amaMpondo aseQaukeni met the requirements to be a kingship or queenship,
Zanozuko lodged with the Commission a claim that he was entitled to be the king of
amaMpondo aseQaukeni. The whole royal family got to know about the claim.
Mpondombini certainly got to know about it because he subsequently contested
Zanozuko’s claim and maintained that he was the one entitled to be the king. This
dispute about who was entitled to be the king of amaMpondo aseQaukeni was then
resolved by the Commission after it had heard evidence adduced by both sides.3
Consequently, in Sigcau the court merely solved the legal problem by declaring the
winning candidate in accordance to statute, but did not resolve the socio-legal dispute
1
Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance &Traditional Affairs 2018 (12) BCLR
1525 (CC)
2
Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 as amended by
Act 23 of 2009.
3
Sigcau v Minister of Cooperative Governance &Traditional Affairs 2018 (12) BCLR
1525 (CC)
