Maanhu Marange v The Permanent Secretary for Local Government and Public Works N.O and Others

The applicant was appointed as acting village head in 2006 and became substantive village head in 2009. In 2011, he was suspended pending alleged misconduct but was reinstated on 13 June 2012 without loss of benefits. No further documents pertaining to misconduct were served on him after that reinstatement. On 9 September 2021, the applicant received a letter from the District Development Coordinator addressed to Chief Marange advising about the applicant's removal as village head and his replacement with the second respondent, Edward Marange. The letter did not state reasons for the removal, whether it resulted from misconduct charges or disqualification. The circumstances of removal were not disclosed to the applicant. The applicant was never afforded an opportunity to be heard, and no hearing was conducted preceding his removal. The second respondent was appointed without the nomination by the headman of the area, and the Provincial Chiefs' Council was not involved in the process.

• Whether there should have been an enquiry before the applicant was removed from his position as village head
• Whether the first respondent was duty bound to charge the applicant with misconduct and afford him a hearing before finding him guilty and removing him from office
• Whether the first respondent had the lawful power to remove the applicant from office without following the procedures set out in section 13 of the Traditional Leaders Act
• Whether the applicant's right to be heard and to be given reasons under section 68(2) of the Constitution was violated
• Whether the Provincial Chiefs' Council should have been involved in the removal process

By consent, the court ordered: (1) The decision of the first respondent to remove the applicant from the office of village head was set aside. (2) There was no order as to costs.

An administrative authority removing a village head from office must follow proper procedural requirements including: (1) formally charging the village head with specific misconduct; (2) conducting a proper inquiry or hearing; (3) affording the village head an opportunity to be heard and respond to allegations; (4) making findings on the allegations; and (5) providing reasons for the removal decision. A removal decision made without following these procedures constitutes gross irregularity and is reviewable under sections 26-28 of the High Court Act read with section 4 of the Administrative Justice Act. The principles of natural justice and the constitutional right to be heard apply to the removal of village heads from office.

The court observed that section 283 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe specifically caters for matters dealing with the appointment, suspension, succession and removal of chiefs rather than village heads. One cannot expect the President to deal with matters involving village heads, as it is the domain of the first respondent (Permanent Secretary) upon nomination by a headman and approval by the chief. The Provincial Chiefs' Council advises the President on issues of chieftainship, not village headship. The court also noted that the second respondent, as the incumbent village head who did not make the removal decision, had no proper basis to oppose the review application as he did not know why the first respondent acted as he did, and the application should have been treated as unopposed.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative and traditional leadership law as it affirms the fundamental principles of procedural fairness and natural justice in administrative decision-making affecting traditional leaders. It establishes that administrative authorities must follow proper procedures when removing traditional leaders from office, including charging them with specific misconduct, conducting proper inquiries, and affording them the right to be heard. The case reinforces the constitutional right under section 68(2) to be given reasons for decisions affecting one's interests or legitimate expectations. It also clarifies the distinction between the constitutional provisions relating to chiefs (section 283) versus village heads, who are governed by the Traditional Leaders Act and subject to administrative law principles.