Online Reporter
Tendai Gukutikwa
Post Reporter
THE Mutare High Court has dismissed an application by Mr Charles Mutasa, who sought to nullify the appointment of Mr James Kurauone Mutasa as the substantive Chief Mutasa.
The matter was heard before Justice Sijabuliso Siziba, who on January 30, 2026, ruled that the application lacked merit and ordered its dismissal.
Mr Charles Mutasa had challenged the findings of the third commission, whose report dated September 13, 2019 recommended the appointment of Mr James Kurauone Mutasa.
In his application, he cited Mr Daiwa Mutasa, the Manicaland Provincial Assembly of Chiefs, the National Council of Chiefs, the Minister of Local Government and Public Works, and President Mnangagwa as respondents.
At the centre of the dispute was whether two houses — Ndorikanda and Chakambeni — should be considered eligible to ascend to the Mutasa chieftainship. The current Chief Mutasa hails from the Ndorikanda house.
Mr Charles Mutasa argued that the chieftainship should rotate exclusively among seven houses: Chimbadzwa, Chirimiriwo, Chakanyuka, Kadzima, Mukonda, Mukukudzi, and Pafiwa.
“He claimed that the third commission acted improperly by adding the two additional houses and placing them ahead of other houses in the line of succession. The applicant argued that the commission was not properly constituted and that it did not adequately consult members of the Mutasa Clan before including the two houses. He argued that the recommendation to appoint Mr James Kurauone Mutasa was procedurally wrong and had no rational basis,” observed Justice Siziba, adding that the respondents maintained that proper procedures were followed.
“They told the court that consultations were conducted within the clan and that there was an agreement to include the Ndorikanda and Chakambeni houses. Minutes of meetings were attached to support their claims. They also argued that findings of earlier commissions were not final and could be revised following further research and consultation. The current Chief Mutasa further argued that the application was linked to another ongoing dispute involving Lovemore Kadzima Mutasa. He told the court that Lovemore Kadzima Mutasa had written to the President on September 10, 2025, petitioning him to resolve the same issue regarding the inclusion of the two houses. He argued that since the dispute was already pending before the President, and the High Court should not interfere,” he said.
One of the main arguments raised was that Mr Charles Mutasa had not exhausted domestic remedies provided for under Section 283(c) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, which gives the President authority to resolve disputes related to chieftainship.
The respondents argued that the applicant should have pursued that route first before approaching the court, adding that the court lacked jurisdiction to determine chieftainship disputes, which falls under the President’s authority.
Another objection was that the application was filed too late.
The respondents also argued that the cause of action arose in 2019 when the third commission submitted its report, meaning the matter had prescribed – which refers to a legal time limit within which a person must bring a case to court.
Additionally, it was argued that the applicant had failed to obtain leave to sue the President as required under the High Court Rules. There were also arguments that the application was a disguised review filed out of time, and that it incorrectly cited non-existent legislation.
In his judgment, Justice Siziba carefully considered all the preliminary objections and upheld the argument that the applicant had failed to seek and obtain leave to sue the President.
Justice Siziba also upheld the point that the applicant had not exhausted alternative remedies available under the Constitution. Most importantly, the judge found that the applicant’s claim had prescribed.
“The finding that the applicant’s cause of action is prescribed goes to the root of the application to warrant its dismissal,” ruled Justice Siziba.
