By Beverly Bizeki
A long-running succession battle over the Mugabe chieftaincy was put to rest after the High Court in Masvingo dismissed an application by Professor Emmanuel Dumbu challenging the appointment of Matubede Mudavanhu as substantive Chief Mugabe.
In a ruling delivered by Justice Zisengwe, the court found that the appointment, though made after years of delay was constitutionally valid and consistent with customary practices, given the stalemate that had crippled the clan and traditional leadership structures for over a decade.
Professor Dumbu, a member of the Dumbu house which has claim in the chieftaincy, had sought to nullify the appointment on the grounds that it flouted the Mugabe clan’s “collateral rotation system,” which requires the chieftaincy to rotate among five royal houses and is against the father to son succession.
He claimed he was the rightful heir, nominated at a meeting held at Chikarudzo Business Centre on October 312022, a meeting he said was sanctioned and in line with Section 283 of the Constitution.
He dismissed earlier proceedings, including a 16 October 2017 meeting that resulted in Mudavanhu’s nomination, arguing that the minutes were unsigned, unconfirmed by attending chiefs, and only stamped by the District Administrator a year later. In contrast, he maintained that the Chikarudzo meeting was procedurally sound and constitutionally compliant.
At the centre of the legal argument was whether Mudavanhu’s appointment could stand, having been made under Section 3(2) (b) of the Traditional Leaders Act, a provision the applicant argued was overridden by Section 283 of the Constitution. He further invoked the Attorney General’s Office Act, pointing to a letter from legal officer Ms. P. Rashai who withdrew earlier advice supporting the appointment and advised the government not to proceed.
However, the court ruled that while Section 283 of the Constitution governs the appointment of traditional leaders, the Traditional Leaders Act remains applicable so long as it is interpreted in line with constitutional principles. Citing precedent from Marange v Marange & Ors, Justice Zisengwe affirmed that the President remains empowered to appoint chiefs, especially in circumstances where nomination processes fail to yield consensus.
“In the face of a protracted impasse and conflicting nominations from within the clan and the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs, the Minister was entitled to invoke the fallback mechanism provided under the Traditional Leaders Act,” said Justice Zisengwe.
The court found that attempts to reach a consensus through regular channels had failed for over a decade since Chief Mute Mudavanhu’s death in 2009. In that period, the Provincial Assembly and National Council of Chiefs failed to endorse a candidate. Given that deadlock, the Minister lawfully nominated Mudavanhu, who had served as acting chief for nearly 14 years and belonged to one of the five royal houses.
Justice Zisengwe concluded that while Professor Dumbu had raised important procedural and constitutional questions, the core issue remained the practical failure of traditional structures to produce a candidate over an 11-year period. Resorting to the fallback clause in the Act was both lawful and necessary.
He said the application had been dismissed with costs, stating that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any constitutional violation or customary inconsistency in Mudavanhu’s appointment.
