Chawaona Wilbroad Kanoti v President National Council of Chiefs NO and Others

The applicant, a self-described "enlightened traditionalist" from the Chirumhanzu traditional chiefdom in the Midlands Province, approached the High Court seeking a declaratory order under section 14 of the High Court Act. He claimed to be acting in terms of section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution to enforce his right under section 63(b) to participate in the cultural life of his choice. The applicant challenged the general process of selecting and nominating traditional chiefs in Zimbabwe, alleging that the process was being conducted improperly because it excluded confirmation by Mhondoro (spirit mediums). He did not challenge any specific chieftainship appointment, but rather sought a general declaration that any selection and nomination of a candidate for appointment as traditional chief without confirmation by the community's Mhondoro/Spirit Mediums should be void ab initio. The applicant contended that properly appointed chiefs should undergo a mandatory confirmation process by spirit mediums to ensure their purity and ability to perform traditional functions such as rain-making ceremonies, spiritual prayers, disease prevention ceremonies, and cultural ceremonies for peace and prosperity.

• Whether the applicant had locus standi in judicio to bring the application under section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution
• Whether the applicant established a recognizable cause of action demonstrating infringement of his fundamental right under section 63(b) of the Constitution to participate in cultural life of his choice
• Whether the applicant had sufficient legal interest in challenging the general process of selecting traditional chiefs
• Whether confirmation by Mhondoro/Spirit Mediums is a mandatory requirement for the appointment of traditional chiefs under the Constitution and the Traditional Leaders Act

The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

A litigant approaching the court under section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution alleging infringement of fundamental rights must: (1) establish locus standi by demonstrating a sufficient personal interest in the matter and entitlement to the relief sought; and (2) establish a recognizable cause of action by presenting material facts showing how their fundamental right has been, is being, or is likely to be infringed. Where pleadings are vague, convoluted, and fail to establish the necessary nexus between the applicant's legal interest and the alleged infringement of a fundamental right, the application will fail for lack of locus standi and absence of a cause of action. In matters concerning traditional leadership and cultural practices, the Constitution and Traditional Leaders Act recognize the diversity of Zimbabwe's multicultural communities, and customary practices (such as confirmation by spirit mediums) that may be mandatory in one community are not necessarily mandatory across all communities.

The court observed that Zimbabwe, being a constitutional democracy, requires courts to play a prominent role in safeguarding fundamental rights, but litigants cannot approach courts on fishing expeditions with bald, unsubstantiated allegations hoping to score a victory, as such serious matters require careful scrutiny. The court noted that the application might have succeeded if the applicant had challenged the appointment of a specific traditional chief who was appointed without Mhondoro confirmation where such confirmation was the prevailing customary practice of the community to which the applicant belonged. The judge commented that courts cannot sit and enquire into the exact customary considerations that should be taken into account in the appointment of traditional chiefs since these vary in each community. The court also observed that it was not necessary to address the non-joinder of the President of Zimbabwe given the finding on locus standi, though this point had been raised by the respondents as material non-joinder.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional law as it clarifies the requirements for establishing locus standi under section 85(1)(a) of the Constitution when alleging infringement of fundamental rights. It establishes that a litigant seeking to enforce constitutional rights must: (1) demonstrate a sufficient personal interest in the matter, and (2) factually establish how a fundamental right has been, is being, or is likely to be infringed. The judgment emphasizes that courts will not entertain vague, generalized challenges to governmental processes without specific factual foundations showing actual or imminent infringement of rights. The case also provides important guidance on the interface between constitutional cultural rights (section 63) and traditional leadership law, recognizing the diversity of customary practices across Zimbabwe's multicultural communities and affirming that not all traditional practices (such as Mhondoro confirmation) are universally applicable or constitutionally mandated across all communities. It reinforces that the Constitution and Traditional Leaders Act provide flexible frameworks that accommodate diverse community-specific customs rather than imposing uniform traditional practices.