Long live the king The problematic nature of Davis J’s judgment in the case of Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba kaBhekuzulu v the President of the Republic of South Africa

Shaka kaSenzangakhona and Dingane kaSenzangakhona would never have imagined that today their descendants would engage in judicial warfare over the throne. This article analyses the cases Zulu v Mathe and Prince Mbonisi Bekithemba kaBhekuzulu v the President of the Republic of South Africa. I take the view that Prince Misuzulu (as he then was) is the rightful King of the AmaZulu. It would be unjust to change that position based on some procedural irregularity when even in the presence of the so-called correct procedure contemplated in section 8(4) and (5) of the Traditional Leadership and Khoi-San Act, he would still be king. The role played by the court in Zulu v Mathe was that of an investigative committee contemplated in the Leadership Act. As such, this is the exception to such a process being mandatory. In a hypothetical situation in which Prince Simakade is a contender to the throne, he falls short due to his mother’s being a spinster. The equality argument is not sufficient to change his position. As such, the prospects of invalidating King Misuzulu’s claim to the throne seem quite scant.