of the
Central Court, but in any event such proceedings, as much as the
documents pertaining to the decisions of the Principal Chief
would
not constitute evidence before this Court, that is,

11

as to the
truth of the contents thereof. Further the first respondents' own
evidence on the point would seen to be hearsay.

One
aspect which emerges from the above extract, is that the first
respondent therein and throughout her affidavit laboured under

misconceptions that a Headman is appointed by his immediate Chief. In
this respect the applicant regards the reference to his being

"appointed" by Chief Mopeli Hlasoa as a "pointing"
or nomination under section 11 of the Act, but nonetheless
avers in
his replying affidavit that,

"In any event, I wish to categorically make the point clear that
I had not been pointed by Chief Mopeli but I succeeded to
the
headmanship of Ha Maieane as of right".

There is
no doubt that the applicant could have silenced all apposition with
the production of the relevant gazette notice, (see
e.g. the case of
Molapo vs Teketsi (3) per Jacobs C.J. at P 238) but the point is, the
first respondent concedes, as I have said,
that the applicant held
the post of Headman under her husband. Thereafter, under section 12
(1) of the Act, the post being hereditary,
the tenure is for life.
The Act provides for

the
discipline to be exercised over Chiefs in default of their duties, I
indeed provides under section 21 that wilful dereliction
of duty is a
criminal offence. But only a Disciplinary Committee appointed under
section 15 of the Act can "deprive (a) Chief
of

12

all or
some of the powers and duties of his office." Such deprivation
or suspension, however, could not, it seems, be permanent,
the Act
providing in section 18 thereof that any such order would have effect
"to an extent and for a period specified in
such order ".
There is no such evidence before me of any such disciplinary
proceedings and there can therefore be no question
that "in his
(the applicant's) place second Respondent had been appointed" as
Headman. Indeed, under section 13 (2) (b)
of the Act had the
applicant ever been deprived of his powers and duties by a
Disciplinary Committee, his customary successor would
exercise such
powers and duties.

The
second respondent makes no claim to Headmanship by the customary law
of succession. The applicant does. The first respondent
concedes that
the applicant at one stage held the Headmanship of Ha Maieane. There
is no evidence that he was lawfully deprived
thereof, to any extent
nor for any period. The applicant does not seek a declaration that he
is statutorily recognized as Headman,
which would raise the issue of
a gazette notice. For the purpose of this application, therefore, on
the

basis of
the papers before me, the applicant has a clear right to protect. In
all the circumstances therefore, the application is
granted and the
rule is confirmed with costs to the applicant.

Dated
this 16th Day of January, 1995.

(B.P.
CULLINAN)

CHIEF
JUSTICE