Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii

[1]         In 2016, the then Premier of the North West Province established the Maluleke/Baloyi Commission of Inquiry (‘the Commission’) through publication in Provincial Government Gazette Extraordinaire 7656 of 15 June 2016. The mandate of the Commission was to investigate various traditional succession disputes which existed for decades, regarding the rightful Bogosi (‘the position held by a Kgosi’) of various tribal communities.

[2]         The dispute is this application concerned a challenge to the rightful heir to the Bogosi of the Bapo ba Mogale. The question being who the rightful and direct descendants were of Mogale Mogale, the first Kgosi of the Bapo community in the Bapong Village, who ruled in the 1800’s.

[3]         This review application whilst implicating the Bapo ba Mogale I and II traditional disputes, is related specifically to the findings and recommendations of the Commission in respect of Bapo 1 on 12 August 2020. In terms of these findings the Premier consequently recognized the second respondent as the Kgosi of the Bapo ba Mogale traditional authority on 20 August 2020.

[4]         The applicants shortly after the recognition of the second respondent as the Kgosi of Bapo Ba Mogale launched the review application. The application was enrolled on the Unopposed Motion Roll of 17 December 2020, but removed when notice of opposition was delivered by both respondents.

[5]         The application was referred for Judicial Case Management by Deputy Judge President Djaje, once removed from the Unopposed Motion Roll. The matter was subsequently case managed with appearances either in person or on a virtual platform during or on April 2021, 21 October 2021, 25 November 2021, 5 May 2022, 3 November 2022, 20 January 2023, 3 March 2023, 14 April 2023, 21 July 2023 and 18 August 2023. By 18 August 2023, Deputy Judge President Djaje perturbed by the lack of co-operation from the first respondent removed the matter from the roll. At this stage, both respondents had already delivered their answering affidavits. To date no replying affidavit has been delivered by the applicants. As a result, the second respondent set down the application for hearing on 14 June 2024.

[6]         The applicants filed a notice of withdrawal of the application on 23 November 2023 without tendering costs, purportedly acting in terms of Uniform Rule 41(1). This triggered the present application predicated solely on the issue of costs.