Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Reporter
THE High Court has dismissed an application brought by four members of the Chiota chieftaincy family seeking to overturn the appointment of Mr Austin Murwira as Chief Chiota.
Presiding over the matter, Justice Joel Mambara ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate on substantive merits of the dispute, emphasising that chieftainship appointments fell under the authority of the President in consultation with traditional leadership bodies, as outlined in the Constitution.
The case arose from a long-standing feud within the Chiota clan over the rightful heir to the chieftaincy.
The applicants — Edson Chigodora, Samuel Bindu, Edson Chiota and Phineas Chiota — argued that Mr Murwira’s appointment was irregular and contrary to the customary succession practices of the Chiota community.
They sought a declaration nullifying the appointment and an order compelling the selection process to be undertaken afresh.
Justice Mambara, however, dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, stating: “The appointment of a chief is an Executive act done by the President in accordance with the Constitution. This court cannot interfere with that decision unless there has been a gross procedural irregularity, which has not been demonstrated in this case.”
The Chiota chieftaincy rotates among three houses — Chakabvapasi, Tunha and Chipitiri.
The last substantive Chief Chiota, Frederick Mapfumo of the Chakabvapasi house, passed away in 2013, leaving the position vacant.
In 2019, the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs recommended Edward Tirikoti of the Chipitiri house as the next chief, but he died before assuming office.
Following Tirikoti’s death, a fresh selection meeting was held.
Representatives of the Chakabvapasi and Tunha houses objected to the Chipitiri house continuing to hold the chieftaincy, citing questions about lineage and the principle of rotation.
Despite their objections, the Chipitiri house nominated Murwira, and the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs endorsed his appointment.
The National Council of Chiefs and the Minister of Local Government subsequently recommended Murwira to the President, who formally appointed him as Chief Chiota in December 2024.
The applicants, however, contended that the decision to retain the chieftaincy within the Chipitiri house violated the principle of rotation and ignored unresolved disputes regarding lineage legitimacy.
They argued that the Tunha house was next in line and that Murwira’s appointment should be nullified.
In his judgment, Justice Mambara outlined the constitutional framework governing the appointment of traditional leaders.
Section 283 of the Constitution vests the President with the power to appoint chiefs based on recommendations from the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs, the National Council of Chiefs, and the Minister responsible for traditional leaders.
It also designates the President as the final arbiter in disputes concerning chieftainship appointments.
The court acknowledged its inherent power to review procedural aspects of administrative decisions but emphasised that the substantive appointment of a chief is a constitutional mandate reserved for the President.
“This court’s review jurisdiction stops at the threshold of the President’s door. Once the matter enters the President’s realm, it becomes a question of policy, tradition, and executive judgment — matters that are not justiciable before this court.”
The applicants had participated in the selection process and presented their grievances to the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs.
Justice Mambara noted that the applicants’ dissatisfaction stemmed from the outcome of the process, not from any procedural irregularity.
“The evidence reveals that the matter was taken through the envisioned channels. The applicants may quarrel with the outcome, but there is no suggestion that the process itself was unlawful,” he said.
The court directed the applicants to pursue their grievances through the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs and the President, as provided by the Constitution. Justice Mambara emphasised the importance of respecting the traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms established under section 283.
“Disputes concerning the appointment of traditional leaders should be resolved within the framework provided by the Constitution. The Provincial Assembly of Chiefs is the proper forum to address such grievances, and the President is the ultimate decision-maker.”
The court ordered the Mashonaland East Provincial Assembly of Chiefs to reconsider the applicants’ grievances and submit a recommendation to the President within 180 days.
