Ignatious Chawasarira v The Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing and Others

This dispute arose from the Shawasha people's customs concerning ascension to the Chinamora chieftainship. When Chief Simon Chidziva (Chinamora 15th) died in 2016, his son Lister Chidziva became acting chief. Multiple teams were dispatched to determine succession, arriving at different conclusions. A team led by Chief Nyajinha nominated Richard Jaya Shambare (eighth respondent). The applicant challenged this nomination under HCH 4303/24, wherein the President (fifth respondent) undertook to abide by the court's decision. Despite the pending litigation and his undertaking, the President appointed the eighth respondent as Chief Chinamora on 11 December 2024. The applicant then filed this urgent application seeking to set aside the appointment on the basis that it violated the Administrative Justice Act and the President's undertaking to the court.

• Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the President's decision to appoint a chief in light of section 283 of the Constitution
• Whether the applicant could challenge the appointment through the Administrative Justice Act despite constitutional provisions vesting dispute resolution powers in the President
• Whether the President's undertaking to abide by the court's decision in pending litigation prevented him from making an appointment
• Whether the applicant's claim concerned the appointment itself or merely procedural compliance

The application was struck off the roll with costs against the applicant.

The binding legal principle established is that section 283 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe vests exclusive jurisdiction in the President to resolve disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of traditional leaders. Once the President has exercised this constitutional power and made an appointment of a chief, the courts lack jurisdiction to review or set aside that appointment, even on administrative law grounds. The mandatory language "must be resolved by the President" in section 283(c)(ii) imposes an exclusive duty on the President and ousts the jurisdiction of the courts over such disputes. An applicant cannot circumvent this constitutional provision by framing a challenge as being about procedural compliance or administrative justice rather than the appointment itself when the substance of the relief sought is to set aside the President's decision to appoint a traditional leader.

The court noted that the President's undertaking to abide by the court's decision in the earlier case (HCH 4303/24) was "neither here nor there" because in the absence of a court order, there is nothing that stops internal proceedings. The court observed that if there are irregularities in the process leading to recommendations, the court may decide on those and order as it deems fit, and the President would have to abide by such an order. However, in the absence of such an order, internal proceedings can continue. The court also noted that procedural steps concerning nomination can be challenged before an appointment is made, but once the President has made an appointment, the court's jurisdiction is ousted. The court emphasized that courts should not take over the functions of an administrative authority and interfere with its actions or decisions by substituting them or setting them aside.

This case reinforces the exclusive constitutional authority of the President of Zimbabwe to resolve disputes concerning the appointment of traditional leaders under section 283 of the Constitution. It clarifies that once the President has made an appointment of a chief, the courts' jurisdiction is ousted, and such decisions cannot be challenged through administrative law remedies. The judgment emphasizes the separation of powers and limits on judicial review where the Constitution vests specific decision-making authority in the executive. It confirms that while procedural steps leading to recommendations may be challenged before an appointment is made, after the President exercises his constitutional power to appoint, the courts cannot intervene to set aside that appointment. The case is significant in the context of traditional leadership disputes in Zimbabwe and the boundaries of judicial oversight of executive action in matters of customary law and traditional governance.