The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, has set aside King Misuzulu KaZwelithini’s recognition by President Cyril Ramaphosa, declaring it unlawful and invalid.
King Misuzulu ascended to the throne of the Zulu nation last year after the death of his parents, King Goodwill Zwelithini, and his mother, Queen Regent Mantfombi, who died months apart in 2021.
King Zwelithini died in March, while the Queen Regent Mantfombi died in May.
A meeting held in May 2021 was held by the Zulu Royal family, where the name Misuzulu emerged as the successor. Prince Simakade did not attend, but he sent a letter, apparently showing no desire for the throne.
In October, King Misuzulu's brother, Prince Simakade, approached the Pretoria High Court, seeking the court to declare Ramaphosa's decision to issue the certificate of recognition to King Misuzulu irrational and asking it to set aside the decision.
Ramaphosa told the court that his decision was rational in issuing the certificate to King Misuzulu, thus paving the way for his October 2022 coronation.
He also told the court he had been guided by a February 2022 ruling in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court in Pietermaritzburg, where Judge Isaac Madondo dismissed an application by Prince Mbonisi who wanted King Misuzulu's coronation to be stopped on the basis that King Misuzulu was wrongly nominated and there is a pending dispute that should first be resolved.
Prince Simakade’s legal team wanted the meeting to be declared unlawful as it was improperly attended by people who were not members of the Zulu royal family.
Judge Norman Davis said the decision to issue King Misuzulu with a certificate of recognition was unlawful and invalid and was set aside.
Judge Davis added: “The matter of the recognition of the Isilo of the AmaZulu is remitted to the first respondent (Ramaphosa), who is directed to act in terms of Sections 8(4) and 8(5) of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 and to appoint an investigative committee as contemplated in that Act to conduct an investigation and to provide a report in respect of allegations that the identification of the second respondent (Misuzulu) was not done in terms of customary laws and customs.
“The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs of their applications, including the costs of two counsels, where employed”.
IOL News