Zimpapers Logo

George Maponga in Masvingo
THE Chirumhanzu chieftainship dynasty has lost its bid to stop the impending appointment of Fidelis Mudzengi as acting Chief Chirumhanzu after the High Court here dismissed its application to stop his investiture, saying it had no power to intervene in a chieftenship appointment.

High Court judge Justice Neville Wamambo yesterday ruled that the court had no jurisdiction to decide who should be chief.

Only the President, in consultation with the National Chiefs’ Council and the Midlands provincial chiefs’ assembly, could make a final decision in such a case.

Mudzengi was on August 13 this year nominated by Chirumhanzu district development coordinator Mr Vafios Hlavati to become the acting chief pending the appointment of the substantive successor to his late father, the last chief, who died in February last year.

The Chirumhanzu chieftainship dynasty wants Mr Julius Chimbi Chigegwe, whom the dynasty agrees is the legitimate next chief, to be acting chief until he is confirmed as substantive chief. Under Shona custom, a chieftenship rotates between houses, with Chirumhanzu being more complex than most with six houses. In some areas the son of the last chief can be acting chief while the process of confirming who is the legitimate heir of the correct house is undertaken, but the Chirumhanzu dynasty reckon this is not the custom in their area.

So Chirumhanzu chieftainship dynasty had made an urgent court application seeking to bar the Government from proceeding to install Mudzengi as acting chief, arguing he was imposed on the Chirumhanzu people.

Through their lawyer, Mr Johannes Ruvengo of Ruvengo and Maboke, the dynasty and Mr Chigegwe wanted Justice Wamambo to stop Mr Mudzengi’s installation as acting chief.

According to the application, Chigegwe was the preferred choice to chieftainship by the dynasty.

The dynasty and Chigegwe, through Mr Ruvengo, were arguing that the process to elect the acting chief was flawed because he was imposed.

According to the applicants, during a meeting convened at Rutunga business Centre in Chirumhanzu on August 14, Mr Hlavati imposed Mudzengi as acting chief.

This, they further argued,was contrary to cultural dictates of their dynasty.

They further argued that during the nomination meeting, Mr Hlavati came armed with a letter from the Midlands provincial development coordinator’s office which directed that Mudzengi be appointed acting chief following the death of his father.

Chirumhanzu dynasty also wanted Mudzengi’s appointment stopped pending release of results of a first nomination meeting convened by the Chirumhanzu district development coordinator’s office at Rutunga Business Centre on June 11 last year, to choose a new acting chief.

They argued that at that meeting, out of all the six houses in the Chirumhanzu succession line, five chose Chigegwe to become acting chief with only one vouching for Mudzengi.

According to the dynasty and Chigegwe, after the nomination ceremony that time, results were never released and now want those results to be made public.

However, the defence in opposing the application, via an affidavit filed by the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Local Government,Public Works and National Housing, Mr Zvinechimwe Churu, argued that there was nothing amiss about Mudzengi’s appointment as acting Chief Chirumhanzu as it was common practice everywhere for a son to temporarily take over the reigns following the passing on of his father who was chief.

Through Ms Kudakwashe Munatsi of the Civil Division in the Attorney General, the defence also argued that the courts have no jurisdiction to resolve matters to do with chieftainship disputes.