Mbabane – A dispute over emabheka cattle with customary significance in lobolo and family obligations has spilled into the High Court, with Ludzidzini Council opposing an application by Thermba Tsabedze to stop the customary process.
The Council says the dispute had not been concluded when Tsabedze approached the High Court and argues that he should have allowed the customary process to run its course.
This is contained in an answering affidavit filed by Ludzidzini Council Secretary Prince Nhlonipho Dlamini in opposition to Tsabedze’s application under case number 2306/2026.
According to Dlamini, the matter brought before the Council concerns emabheka associated with one of the family members and involves competing versions concerning the custody and origin of the cattle.
Tsabedze and other family members had attended two meetings convened by the Council to discuss the dispute, the Council says.
However, Dlamini says Tsabedze failed to attend subsequent meetings despite being summoned, prompting him to contact Tsabedze again on September 13, 2026.
Instead of returning to the customary process, Tsabedze approached the High Court around September 17, the Council says.
The Council maintains that it had not refused to hear Tsabedze and that the proceedings were still underway when he sought the court’s intervention.
It says the directive concerning livestock at Lalela dipping tank was an interim measure taken while the customary inquiry continued and was not a final decision on ownership of the cattle.
The Council has also raised the issue of Mhlengi Tsabedze, whom it says is allegedly the owner of the livestock affected by the directive.
Dlamini argues that Mhlengi has a direct and substantial interest in the matter but has not been joined as a party to the proceedings.
The Council says Tsabedze cannot seek an order affecting another adult family member’s livestock without establishing that he has the necessary standing or mandate to do so.
It also challenges Tsabedze’s reliance on his position as a senior sibling, arguing that being the senior member of the family does not automatically give him authority to litigate the rights of another adult sibling.
Beyond the cattle dispute, the Council says the customary proceedings brought several other family disagreements to the fore.
These include a dispute over pension benefits involving the wives of Tsabedze’s late father and disagreements concerning a sugar cane quota allegedly held by Mhlengi after their father’s death.
According to the Council, it emerged during the proceedings that two of the deceased’s wives were allegedly excluded from pension benefits because Tsabedze and Mhlengi’s mother had been married to him under civil rites.
The Council says the other two women were allegedly required to repay pension money they had already received.
The affidavit further states that Mhlengi allegedly took over the late father’s sugar cane quota, with proceeds from the sales allegedly benefiting only Mhlengi and Tsabedze while other family members did not benefit.
The Council says these issues formed part of the wider family dispute being considered through the customary process and do not establish that it unlawfully harassed Tsabedze.
It has also raised several preliminary objections to the application.
Apart from the non-joinder of Mhlengi, the Council questions Tsabedze’s locus standi, arguing that he has not established a legal basis for bringing proceedings concerning another adult sibling’s rights.
It further challenges the manner in which the Council has been cited, saying Tsabedze has not identified the legal provision establishing Ludzidzini Council as a conventional body corporate.
The Council also argues that Tsabedze’s request to set aside the livestock directive is, in substance, a review application.
Dlamini says Tsabedze did not properly invoke the review procedure under Rule 53 and has not placed the relevant record before the court.
The Council further argues that Tsabedze has failed to establish the requirements for a final interdict, including a clear right, an injury committed or reasonably apprehended, and the absence of another satisfactory remedy.
It says Tsabedze could attend the Council’s proceedings and participate in resolving the dispute instead of seeking to permanently stop the customary institution from summoning him.
The Council also disputes the urgency of the application.
Dlamini points out that Tsabedze was first summoned around August, attended two meetings, failed to attend subsequent meetings and was contacted again on September 13 before approaching court several days later.
The Council therefore describes the urgency as self-created.
It further argues that the relief sought by Tsabedze is too broad, particularly his request for a permanent interdict preventing the Council from summoning him in relation to family matters.
The Council says Tsabedze has not demonstrated that the customary institution’s continued consideration of the dispute amounts to unlawful conduct.
While acknowledging that customary institutions are subject to the Constitution and judicial supervision, the Council argues that there is a distinction between a court reviewing a completed decision and intervening in a process that is still underway.
It says Section 252(2) of the Constitution recognises and adopts Swazi customary law, subject to the Constitution and written law.
Dlamini further accuses Tsabedze of undermining the Council’s authority by failing to attend subsequent meetings after participating in the earlier proceedings.
The Council argues that Tsabedze cannot rely on his own decision to withdraw from the customary process to establish urgency or justify court intervention
The Council wants the customary process concerning the emabheka and the wider family dispute to be allowed to continue.
Discussion about this post