Online Reporter
Fidelis Munyoro
Chief Court Writer
The High Court has dismissed an application by self-represented litigant Chawaona Wilbroad Kanoti, who sought a declaratory order challenging the current process for appointing traditional chiefs.
Justice Priscillah Munangati-Manongwa ruled that Kanoti lacked the legal standing to bring the matter before the court and failed to establish a valid legal basis for his claim.
The court found his application both procedurally and substantively flawed.
Kanoti, who identified himself as an “enlightened traditionalist”, argued that the appointment of chiefs without the confirmation of spirit mediums(Mhondoro) was unconstitutional.
He claimed this exclusion violated his right to participate in cultural life, as protected under Section 63 of the Constitution, and sought a declaration that any chief appointed without such spiritual confirmation should be considered null and void.
However, Justice Munangati-Manongwa dismissed this argument, noting that Kanoti failed to demonstrate a clear, direct interest in the matter or explain how his personal rights were being infringed by the general appointment process.
“The applicant’s pleadings are inadequate and cannot be a basis for any suit or action,” said the judge.
She explained that the Constitution and the Traditional Leaders Act allow for the appointment of chiefs based on customs and traditions that vary across communities, and do not make spirit medium confirmation a legal requirement.
“The Mhondoro or spirit medium confirmation is not a universal requirement in all communities.
“It is not mandatory under the law,” the judge ruled.
The court also found that Kanoti’s legal arguments lacked clarity and were not backed by any material evidence.
Importantly, the judge noted that the appointment of chiefs is a community-specific process, and it is not the role of the court to prescribe customary practices across all regions.
“This court cannot sit and enquire into the exact customary considerations that should be taken into account in the appointment of traditional chiefs since these vary in each community,” she said.
The first respondent, the President of the National Council of Chiefs, Chief Mtshane Khumalo, opposed the application, arguing that Kanoti lacked legal standing to bring the matter before the court and had failed to show any personal injury or violation of rights.
The respondents also highlighted that Kanoti did not cite the President of Zimbabwe, who is constitutionally mandated to appoint chiefs, arguing that it was material procedural flaw.
In response, Kanoti insisted that he had a substantial interest in the matter and that his application for declaratory relief was justified.
However, the court disagreed, stating that he failed to meet the threshold set under Section 85(1) of the Constitution, which governs who may approach the courts to enforce fundamental rights.
“The applicant has failed to clear the first hurdle of proving that he has an interest in the matter,” ruled Justice Munangati-Manongwa.
As a result, the legal objection raised by the respondents was upheld, and the application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
