BRENNA MATENDERE
THE Chirumhanzu chieftainship wrangle has now spilt to the High Court where a board composed of all family members, who are descendants of first Chief Churumhanzu known as Mhepo, wants an order declaring the nomination of a candidate selected by the Midlands Chiefs Assembly to be substantive Chief Chirumhanzu, declared unlawful, null and void
Alois Rutanga, current chairperson of the Chirumhanzu Chieftainship Royal Families Dare, made the oath on behalf of the applicants, declaring that all the facts and allegations deposed in the application are to the best of his knowledge and believe the same to be true and correct.
The respective respondents are the Midlands Provincial Chief Assembly, Maria Muzenda, a female adult employed by the Ministry of Local Government and Public Works as an Administrator working in Harare and Abraham Nyamande, who has been lined up as next substantive Chief Chirumhanzu.
The representatives of the applicant are from the families of Nherera and Mutizirapi who were sons of the said first Chief Churumhanzu and there are nine sub houses which are represented by three members from each sub-house to compose “Applicant.”
In the court application, applicant avers that on the 6th of June 2024, the first respondent convened a meeting at Mvuma Council offices, calling upon applicant and other family members of Churumhanzu for selection and presentation of a nominee candidate to be recommended for appointment as the substantive Chief Chirumhanzu, since there was acting Chief Chirumhanzu since 2019 after the death of then substantive Chief Chirumhanzu one Gerald Mudzengi.
At the meeting, second respondent was also present as part of the Chief’s Council team that had come for the selection and presentation of the name of the nominee to be appointed substantive Chief Chirumhanzu.
During the said meeting first respondent was represented by Chief Mutarise as the chairperson, chief Matanga, and Chief Mavisa. Second respondent was part of the team supporting them from the Local Government.
The first and second respondents during the meeting unilaterally declared while addressing the members gathered that the candidate nominee should come from Simba sub-house as if they were part of the family members upon which the candidate was to be chosen from.
Further the second respondent being an Administrator from the Local Government from her address at the meeting gave incorrect information about how Chirumhanzu Chieftainship rotates between the two sub-houses, claiming that it rotates on equal basis that is from Mutizirapi to Nherera and vice-versa which was incorrect but formed the basis for the respondent’s claim that the candidate should come from Simba sub-house.
Muzenda is accused of giving a distorted record and history on how the Chieftainship rotates which was totally at war with the applicant’s meeting and plans in this matter.
As a result, the respondent did not give a chance to the applicant to explain fully the history of Chirumhanzu Chieftainship nor to present the selected nominee candidate which the applicant had as a clan.
The respondents declared that the candidate should be chosen from Mutizirapi house thus effectively denying the applicant the opportunity to present its candidate before the respondents.
Applicant had selected its candidates well in advance and was only due to present it during that meeting which position was denied by the respondent’s actions who instead declared what they wanted.
As a result, most of the applicant’s members and families and other family members gathered were requested by the respondent to move out of the council-hall to pave way for the Mutizirapi families to decide on who they chose as the nominee candidate.
This was despite the fact that applicant’s members protested that they already had the name of the preferred candidate and have minutes and other documents supporting the selection of the candidate that was done way back in 2021 after the death of substantive Chief.
The applicant had exercised its authority and functions in as far as selection of the nominee candidate was concerned.
However, the respondents did not give Applicant a chance to present its candidate during the said meeting.
Instead, it unilaterally declared where the candidate should come from and distorted all the process and procedure applicant had done in so far as the appointment of the substantive Chief Chirumhanzu is concerned.
As a result, the third respondent was selected as the nominee candidate to fill the vacant substantive Chief Chirumhanzu’s position.
“The said nomination and selection of 3rd Respondent as the nominee for the said post is in fact against the position adopted by the applicant and all other family members for Chirumhanzu Chieftainship house. 3rd Respondent from Muzondo sub-house has been clothed with Headmanship which rotates in their sub-houses since 1896, thus in terms of the resolution adopted by the Applicant they were ineligible to claim substantive Chief’s post or paramount chieftainship presently when other sub-houses upon where the chieftainship rotates do not even have a single chance to take on chieftainship,” reads part of the application.
“For avoidance of doubt see copy of the minutes dated 21st January 2023deliberated upon by the Applicant on this issue marked “E”. Further, also see a copy of the resolution attached hereto marked “F” adopted by the applicant and signed by all other family members of Chirumhanzu Chieftainship Clan.”
“In that order it is clear that the 3rd Respondent was and is ineligible to be selected as a nominee candidate for appointment as substantive Chief Chirumhanzu.”
The application is therefore made to interdict first and second respondents from forwarding and recommending the third respondent as the selected nominee or candidate to fill the vacant Chief’s post.
The applicant seeks to compel the respondent to act according to the law and the dictates of the Chirumhanzu Chieftainship Clan’s agreed position through applicant during the meetings held for selection of substantive Chief Candidate to the post.
Applicant avers that it has a clear right in this matter and direct interest in the selection process of substantive Chief, it is the board entrusted with such authority and decision making at clan level on issues concerning selection of next Chief Chirumhanzu. The applicant’s duties have been usurped by the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein by refusing to listen to its resolutions in this matter.
Further, the applicant insists that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the respondents are not stopped from making recommendations for appointment of substantive Chief Chuirumhanzu at this stage.
Applicant has made its decisions for the preferred candidate based on correcting historical imbalances that have been experienced in rotating the Chieftainship among its sub-houses that deserves to take on Chieftainship whenever there is a vacancy.
The applicant said for avoidance of doubt, referred to a copy of the letter attached marked as “G” explaining how the Chigwegwe sub-house should be accorded with the chance to be nominated substantive Chief.
It also referred to a copy of the family tree marked “H” and the record on how Chirumhanzu Chieftainship has been rotating among the sub-houses since 1820.
“Applicant insist that in the premises the 1st and 2nd respondents had no right at law or no reason thereof to disregard selection of applicant its preferred candidate to be appointed substantive Chief. Applicant had no other effective remedy at law save to approach this Honorable Court of recourse
“ It submitted that respondents had no right at law to disregard Applicant’s selection of its preferred candidate as agreed by the clan through Applicant,” applicant said.
“Wherefore, the Applicant prays that the Court declare the nomination of the 3rd Respondent as a candidate to the substantive Chief Chirumhanzu unlawful, null and void. Further that the selection process thereof be reconvened and be done in a fair manner thereto before the final recommendations have been made to the President through the minister responsible for the appointment of substantive Chief Chirumhanzu.”
