Basubiya Paramount Chief, Munitenge Lawrence Liswani Sinvula III’s case against government over his remuneration returns to court today (Friday 26th) for the much-anticipated judgement.
Judge Godfrey Nthomiwa is to determine whether the applicant is entitled to remuneration at a salary scale of E2 or not, as opposed by the State.
He is also to rule as to whether the present application constitutes a disguised review or if it was properly brought as a claim for declaratory relief. The judge will further determine whether the respondent or the applicant should pay the costs of the application.
The case follows after both parties settled another matter before Judge Bugalo Maripe in March 2026 regarding the recognition of Sinvula III, as the State withdrew the letter which derecognised him as Paramount Chief of the Veekuhane tribe.
In today’s case, the applicant is seeking a declaratory relief confirming that, by virtue of his recognition as Kgosi of a tribe, he is entitled to remuneration at a salary scale of E2, together with such consequential relief as deemed appropriate by the court.
Kgosi Sinvula III was initially appointed in 2020 as Kgosi (sub-chief) of Kavimba under section 21 of the Bogosi Act and remunerated at a salary scale of D2. In 2023, he was recognised as Kgosi of the Basubiya tribe in terms of section 6(2) but continued to be remunerated at a salary scale of D2, a move challenged by his attorney.
His attorney, Mishingo Jeremia, however, argues that this classification is inconsistent with the governing framework and unsupported by law.
Presenting heads of arguments in March, Jeremia contended that once the applicant was recognised as a Kgosi under section 6(2), he became entitled to the salary scale of E2, placing him in the same legal position as other Dikgosi recognised under the same provision.
Jeremia indicated that following his client’s recognition, he consistently disputed the continued application of salary scale D2 and made repeated representations seeking alignment with the applicable framework.
“Those representations culminated in correspondence from the respondent, including a letter seeking to derecognise the applicant, which underscores the existence of a live dispute rather than any acceptance of the D2 classification,” criticised Jeremia.
Jeremia maintained that the respondent’s refusal to apply the directive prescribing salary scale E2 for Dikgosi, without lawful justification and in the face of consistent practice, amounts to unfair administrative conduct.
“The respondent has not advanced any lawful or rational basis for treating the applicant differently. Such differential treatment is arbitrary and inconsistent with constitutional principles of equality and rationality,” argued the attorney.
However, Deputy Attorney General Carlos Salbany, representing the respondent, argued that the applicant accepted the remuneration at salary scale D2 at the time of his appointment. He emphasized that the applicant was aware at all material times that the position carried a salary scale of D2 in the same manner his father’s did, and the duties he currently executes are identical to those of his predecessor.
“The applicant has for all intents and purposes known that the position he holds entitles him to earn at D2 salary scale only and no other remuneration scale. The right that the applicant can seek to be enforced is that of what was agreed between Government and himself, which he accepted and is binding on him,” Salbany said.
He added that no other salary scale can be attached to the applicant’s appointment other than that which was explicitly conferred on him by the Minister.
Salbany further argued that Kgosi Sinvula III is grossly out of time by five years and a few months in lodging an application for review before the Court. He noted that the timeline runs from December 17, 2020, or at the latest February 2023, making it three years late when the Ministry informed the applicant of its decision to decline the requested salary amendment.
“The applicant would have had to bring the Court into their confidence regarding the reasons for delay in not bringing review proceedings timeously. It is, with all due respect, why the applicant has brought the application as a declarator and not a review,” he concluded.
