Mphephu Ramabulana suffers another court blow in Vhavenda kingship battle

The acting king of Vhavenda, Toni Mphephu Ramabulana, has suffered yet another court blow after the Constitutional Court dismissed his application for leave to appeal a ruling by the Supreme Court of Appeal that he should not be Venda king.

The apex court refused condonation after his main application was filed late.

Mphephu Ramabulana and the Mphephu Ramabulana Royal Family Council had approached the apex court in an attempt to overturn the 2019 decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal that set aside former president Jacob Zuma’s decision to install Toni Mphephu Ramabulana as the acting king of Vhavenda.

This after Princess Masindi Mphephu, the princess of the Mphephu royal family, dragged then South African president Zuma and Toni to court, claiming she was the rightful heir to the Vhavenda throne.

The court challenge also halted the coronation of her uncle.

The SCA had said in its ruling that the decision to recognise Toni as the rightful king “promotes gender discrimination”.

His appointment was ruled to be illegal and unconstitutional.

The ruling read in part: “It is declared that the decision of the eighth respondent of 14 August 2010 to identify the first respondent as a suitable person to be appointed as the King of the Vhavenda Traditional Community is unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid and is renewed and set aside.

“It declared that the decisions of the eighth respondent to identify and that of the second respondent to recognise the first respondent as King of Vhavenda are based on a criteria [sic] that promotes gender discrimination, and are reviewed and set aside in that the discrimination impedes compliance with the provisions of section 2A(4)(c) of the Traditional Leadership and Governance Framework Amendment Act 23 of 2009, to progressively advance gender representation in the succession to the position of King or Queen of Vhavenda.”

Though the royal council said at the time it would no longer be approaching the courts on the matter, they ended up approaching the apex court to set aside the SCA’s decision.

But Masindi emerged victorious again on Friday.

A unanimous judgment penned by Judge Sisi Khampepe reads in part: “The Constitutional Court noted that the consequences of a court finding that an administrative act is unlawful and unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court of Appeal did in respect of the Identification and Recognition Decisions, are dictated by the Constitution, in particular section 172(1)(a) which prescribes that an unlawful or unconstitutional administrative act must be declared invalid.

“The court also noted that the stay order neither afforded Ms Mphephu administrative justice nor vindicated the rue of law and, in fact, caused her prejudice. In the result, the court found that the Supreme Court of Appeal’s stay order was not a just and equitable order as contemplated in section 172(1)(b) of the Constitution, and thus, it fell to be set aside.”