The battle for the Zulu throne is far from over. This comes after the North Gauteng High Court Judge Norman Davis granted President Cyril Ramaphosa and King Misuzulu kaZwelithini leave to appeal the High Court ruling which found that Misuzulu's recognition as king was unlawful and invalid. Ramaphosa recognised Misuzulu as the king of the Zulu nation in 2022 but the king's brother Prince Simakade Zulu brought an application to court challenging his ascension to the throne.

In the ruling made in December, Davis found that Ramaphosa had failed to follow due process in terms of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019, also known as the Leadership Act, when he failed to institute an investigating committee when a dispute over the Zulu throne arose between Misuzulu and Simakade. The court further ordered Ramaphosa to institute an investigative committee to investigate allegations of violation of customary laws in the identification of Misuzulu. King Misuzulu was recognised by Ramaphosa as the King of the nation after the death of his father King Goodwill Zwelithini kaZulu and his mother, Queen Regent Mantfombi. The court case between King Goodwill Zwelithini's sons resumed just a month after the passing of Prime Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who backed Misuzulu's appointment as king. Before Shenge's passing, there was a dispute between the King and the Zulu Prime Minister which saw the late prince not signing an affidavit that forms part of the king's support documentation and evidence. 

Buthelezi had chaired a 2021 family meeting, where Misuzulu was announced as the successor to his mother, Queen Regent Mantfombi, who had taken over from her husband. Giving his verdict, Davis said, "Having regard to the relative novelty of the issues which came before the court, distinguishing the matter from other succession matters as well as the enormity of importance of finality regarding the issue of succession to the AmaZulu throne, which may result in a reign of many years as history has shown and which may impact on the Zulu nation as a whole and the Ingonyama Trust, I find that compelling reasons exist that leave to appeal should be granted as contemplated in Section 17(1)(a) (ii) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013. Having reached the above conclusion, I find it unnecessary to further dissect the various applications, irrespective of my view of a lack of prospects of success on appeal or not of some of them. All parties were in agreement that, should leave to appeal be granted, it should be to the Supreme Court of Appeal and that the customary order as to costs should be made. I order the leave to appeal and leave to cross-appeal as applied for by the respective parties, against the orders of this court of 11 December 2023, are granted to the Supreme Court of Appeal. Costs in the various application for leave to appeal and to cross appeal, shall be costs in the appeal," said Davis.