Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Case Law / All Case Law RSS ← Back

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Sponsored by


Article Enquiry

King Pahlo Royal Family and Another v Molosi and Others (3501/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 31

Verification Image. Please refresh the page if you cannot see this image.

Embed Video

King Pahlo Royal Family and Another v Molosi and Others (3501/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 31

31st July 2020


Font size: -+

Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

1] Before me are three interrelated applications all relating to the same matter in which this Court delivered judgment on the 14 January 2020 in respect of the main application.  I have considered it convenient and less confusing to refer to the parties as they were in the main application, save where otherwise indicated.  The fourth, fifth and sixth respondents did not participate in these proceedings.  For this reason, I shall refer to the first, second and third respondents as “the respondents” for the sake of brevity, save where otherwise indicated. 


[2] First is an application for leave to appeal made by the respondents against the whole judgment and orders in the main application.  In essence in those orders this Court declared invalid the third respondent’s resolution in which it identified the second respondent as a queen of AmaMpondomise.  The third respondent was also declared not to be a royal family for purposes of identifying a king or queen in terms of section 9(1)(a) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 (the Framework Act) to assume kingship or queenship of AmaMpondomise which was left vacant by the late king Mhlontlo.  The respondents were also interdicted from identifying a person to assume a kingship or queenship of AmaMpondomise, which is a position which was left vacant by king Mhlontlo.  The fifth and fourth respondents were directed to consider the first applicant’s resolution in terms of which it identified the second applicant as the king of AmaMpondomise in terms of section 9(1)(b) of the Framework Act.  The respondents were also ordered to pay the costs of the main application, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

[3] The applicants oppose the application for leave to appeal.  They have also filed an application in terms of section 18 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (the section 18 application) for the execution of the judgment and orders referred to above pending the finalisation of any appeal and further appeals.  The section 18 application is opposed by the respondents.



To subscribe email or click here
To advertise email or click here

Comment Guidelines

About is a product of Creamer Media.

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more


We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store


Advertising on is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now