After receipt by the President of the Commission’s decision, he caused a notice to be published in the Government Gazette and a certificate to be issued recognising Zanozuko as the king of amaMpondo aseQaukeni. In the latter event, the President would be required to act in terms of section 9(3) and could refer the matter to the National House of Traditional Leaders, or refuse to issue a certificate of recognition, or refer the matter back to the royal family for reconsideration and resolution. ![]() Section 9 provided that whenever the position of a king or queen was to be filled, the royal family should identify the person who, in terms of customary law, was entitled to be the king or queen and notify the Premier of the Province of such name and give the name to the President and the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the President would be obliged to recognise that person as king or queen unless there were allegations that customary law had not been complied with in identifying that person. ![]() Section 26(2)(a) of the unamended Act provided that the Commission had to convey its decision to the President within two weeks of taking it, “for immediate implementation in accordance with section 9 or 10 where the position of a king or queen is affected by such a decision.”. The Commission communicated its decision to the President in terms of section 26(2)(a) of the unamended Act. On the question of who was entitled to be the king or queen of amaMpondo aseQaukeni, the Commission decided that Zanozuko Sigcau was entitled to be the king and rejected Mpondombini Sigcau’s contention. The question to be determined was what the steps were that the President was required to take in order to immediately implement the decision of the Commission concerning the original dispute. The application before the Constitutional Court was incidental to the original dispute. The original dispute was about who was entitled to be the king or queen of amaMpondo aseQaukeni. The application was brought by Ms Wezizwe Feziwe Sigcau against the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs and the President of the Republic of South Africa. The decision of the Commission was about a dispute over a traditional leadership position relating to the position of king or queen of amaMpondo aseQaukeni. ![]() On Tuesday 11 September 2018, the Constitutional Court handed down judgment in an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa, Pretoria (High Court), regarding a dispute about the steps that the President was obliged to take in terms of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Act 41 of 2003 (unamended Act) in implementing a decision of the Commission on Traditional Dispute and Claims (Commission). The following explanato ry note is provided to assist the media in reporting this case and is not binding on the Constitutional Court or any member of the Court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |