Nine plaintiffs, descendants of Mudyanadzo Chimombe of Gutu who once ruled as Chief Chimombe, instituted summons action against the first defendant (the sitting Chief Chimombe appointed by the President in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act), the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing (second defendant), and the District Administrator for Gutu (third defendant). The plaintiffs claimed that the first defendant's appointment was wrong, illegal and against customary practice because the chieftainship should devolve only in the Mudyanadzo family and not extend to descendants of his brothers. The first defendant was the son of Mudyanadzo's brother. The plaintiffs sought declaratory orders that the chieftainship belongs only to Mudyanadzo's direct descendants, that the first defendant should be removed, and that the second and third defendants should look for a substantive Chief Chimombe from among the plaintiffs.
The special plea in bar was upheld and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed with costs.
The binding legal principles established are: (1) A court cannot set aside the President's appointment of a traditional leader without proper review proceedings and without citing the President as a party; (2) The High Court has no inherent jurisdiction to remove a sitting chief appointed by the President in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act - such removal is within the sole discretion of the President under section 3(3) of the Act; (3) Review proceedings challenging administrative decisions must comply with Order 33 Rule 256 of the High Court Rules and must be brought by way of court application, not summons action; (4) Declaratory relief under section 14 of the High Court Act is limited to declarations concerning existing, future or contingent legal rights or obligations, not purely factual matters; (5) Courts cannot direct government officials to perform functions (such as appointing chiefs) that are vested in other constitutional authorities or which violate the statutory scheme for such appointments.
The court made several observations: (1) The plaintiffs' declaration was "far from satisfactory" as it contained a historical narrative and evidence rather than proper pleadings in compliance with Rule 99(c) of the High Court Rules; (2) In practice, the process of nominating candidates for appointment as chief is the responsibility of the clan, and section 3 of the Traditional Leaders Act does not envisage government officials taking over the process to "look for" a chief; (3) The plaintiffs had not impugned the actual process of nomination and appointment of the first defendant, which would have been necessary for any challenge to succeed; (4) The effect of the plaintiffs' counsel attempting to re-characterize the claim as a review application was to "consign the claim to the dust bin forever" as it highlighted non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.
This case is significant in establishing important principles regarding the appointment and removal of traditional leaders in Zimbabwe (and has persuasive value in South African law which has similar structures). It clarifies that: (1) the courts cannot usurp the constitutional authority of the President to appoint and remove traditional leaders; (2) declaratory relief must relate to legal rights and obligations, not purely factual matters; (3) challenges to administrative decisions must comply with proper review procedures including citing all necessary parties; (4) the appointment of traditional leaders follows a statutory process that cannot be short-circuited by court orders directing officials to "look for" chiefs. The case reinforces the separation of powers and the limits of judicial intervention in executive appointments, while also highlighting the importance of procedural compliance in administrative law challenges.