Chirumhanzu Chieftainship Dynasty (Traditional Leaders Steering Committee) and Julius Chimbi Chigegwe v Mvuma District Development Coordinator and Fidelis Mudzengi

The substantive Chief Chirumanzu passed away, creating a vacancy for Acting Chief Chirumanzu. On 13 August 2020, the 1st Respondent (Mvuma District Development Coordinator) convened a meeting with applicants and other clan members at Rutunga, Chirumhanzu to choose a nominee for the vacant position of Acting Chief Chirumanzu. The 1st applicant was an executive committee with a mandate to ensure proper succession, nomination and appointment of chiefs and acting chiefs. The applicants alleged irregularities in the selection process, claiming that the 1st respondent did not give concerned family members an opportunity to participate properly in the selection, that the selection of the 3rd respondent (Fidelis Mudzengi) was an imposition and unilateral despite protests, and that proper legal processes were not followed. The applicants sought to interdict the respondents from processing and forwarding documents to the President for the appointment of the 3rd respondent as Acting Chief Chirumanzu.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning the appointment of traditional leaders (chiefs) in terms of section 283 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
• Whether disputes concerning the appointment of chiefs arising before the actual appointment fall within the constitutional provisions requiring resolution by the President on recommendation of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs
• Whether the applicants approached the correct forum or should have followed domestic remedies available under the traditional leadership framework
• Whether the procedure for appointment of Acting Chiefs falls under the same constitutional provisions as the appointment of substantive Chiefs

The application was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) The High Court does not have jurisdiction to resolve disputes concerning the appointment of traditional leaders (chiefs or acting chiefs) as section 283(c)(ii) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013 mandatorily vests this power exclusively in the President, who must act on recommendation of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs through the Minister responsible for traditional leaders; (2) The constitutional procedure for appointing substantive chiefs applies equally to acting chiefs by virtue of section 340(1)(c) of the Constitution, which provides that the power to appoint a substantive office holder includes the power to appoint a person acting in that office; (3) Disputes "concerning" the appointment of chiefs within the meaning of section 283(c)(ii) include disputes arising before the actual appointment takes place, not only post-appointment disputes, as the word "concerning" encompasses anything about or involving the appointment process; (4) The use of "must" in section 283(c)(ii) is peremptory and imposes a mandatory duty on the President to resolve all such disputes, thereby excluding concurrent court jurisdiction.

The court made an obiter observation rejecting counsel's request to grant an order against the 3rd respondent in default due to non-appearance, finding this untenable because the relief sought was not against the 3rd respondent but against the 1st and 2nd respondents. The court also noted that some of the cases cited by both parties were decided before the 2013 Constitution or based on other considerations, implicitly suggesting caution in relying on pre-2013 Constitution jurisprudence in traditional leadership matters given the significant constitutional changes introduced by the 2013 Constitution.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean constitutional and customary law as it clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the High Court in matters concerning traditional leadership. It reinforces the constitutional framework established in the 2013 Constitution which vests exclusive authority in the President (on recommendation of traditional leadership structures) to resolve disputes concerning the appointment of chiefs and acting chiefs. The judgment clarifies that this constitutional mechanism applies to disputes arising both before and after appointment, and extends to acting chiefs as well as substantive chiefs. It demonstrates the constitutional recognition and protection of traditional governance structures and establishes clear boundaries between judicial and executive authority in matters of traditional leadership succession. The case also illustrates the principle that litigants must exhaust domestic remedies within traditional leadership frameworks before approaching courts.