News / National
Chief Chamutsa appointment challenged in court
2 hrs ago |
34 Views
The appointment of Garepi Mavhurudza as substantive Chief Chamutsa of Buhera has been challenged in the High Court, with a claimant alleging that the succession process breached legal and customary requirements.
Tutsirayi Chimutsa, who says he belongs to the lineage of the Chamutsa chieftainship, has approached the court seeking to stop Mavhurudza's installation pending a review of the appointment.
Chimutsa, represented by Mangwana and Partners, cited Mavhurudza, the National Chiefs Council and the Minister of Local Government and Public Works as respondents.
In his application, Chimutsa argues that the appointment was not made in accordance with the law and established customary succession practices.
He claims he is an interested and affected party who should have been given an opportunity to make representations during the succession process.
Chimutsa further alleges that Mavhurudza does not belong to the lineage eligible to occupy the chieftainship and that the customary line of succession was disregarded.
To support his claim, he attached historical records from the National Archives of Zimbabwe dating back to 1967 relating to the Chamutsa community.
According to Chimutsa, the records support his claim to the chieftainship and demonstrate the importance of following the established succession lineage.
He is asking the High Court to declare Mavhurudza's appointment unlawful and procedurally irregular.
He is also seeking an order staying implementation of the appointment pending determination of his review application, filed under case number HCH 1798/26.
Mavhurudza was appointed substantive Chief Chamutsa with effect from April 7, 2026, following the death of Chief Tizirepi Muchini in 2010.
Erija Muchini had been acting as Chief Chamutsa while awaiting the appointment of a substantive traditional leader.
Chimutsa argues that the matter is urgent because Mavhurudza has already been appointed and his installation and assumption of office are believed to be imminent.
He fears that allowing the installation to proceed would enable Mavhurudza to begin exercising the powers and authority of chief, potentially entrenching his position before the court determines the review application.
According to Chimutsa, such a development could undermine the effectiveness of any order ultimately issued by the court.
He maintains that he acted promptly after learning of the appointment and its imminent implementation.
Chimutsa is seeking an order remitting the succession dispute to the appropriate authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law and customary practices.
He wants all interested parties to be given an opportunity to make representations before a fresh decision is made on who should occupy the Chamutsa chieftainship.
The allegations contained in the court application are yet to be determined, and the challenge does not amount to a finding that Mavhurudza's appointment was unlawful.
Tutsirayi Chimutsa, who says he belongs to the lineage of the Chamutsa chieftainship, has approached the court seeking to stop Mavhurudza's installation pending a review of the appointment.
Chimutsa, represented by Mangwana and Partners, cited Mavhurudza, the National Chiefs Council and the Minister of Local Government and Public Works as respondents.
In his application, Chimutsa argues that the appointment was not made in accordance with the law and established customary succession practices.
He claims he is an interested and affected party who should have been given an opportunity to make representations during the succession process.
Chimutsa further alleges that Mavhurudza does not belong to the lineage eligible to occupy the chieftainship and that the customary line of succession was disregarded.
To support his claim, he attached historical records from the National Archives of Zimbabwe dating back to 1967 relating to the Chamutsa community.
According to Chimutsa, the records support his claim to the chieftainship and demonstrate the importance of following the established succession lineage.
He is asking the High Court to declare Mavhurudza's appointment unlawful and procedurally irregular.
Mavhurudza was appointed substantive Chief Chamutsa with effect from April 7, 2026, following the death of Chief Tizirepi Muchini in 2010.
Erija Muchini had been acting as Chief Chamutsa while awaiting the appointment of a substantive traditional leader.
Chimutsa argues that the matter is urgent because Mavhurudza has already been appointed and his installation and assumption of office are believed to be imminent.
He fears that allowing the installation to proceed would enable Mavhurudza to begin exercising the powers and authority of chief, potentially entrenching his position before the court determines the review application.
According to Chimutsa, such a development could undermine the effectiveness of any order ultimately issued by the court.
He maintains that he acted promptly after learning of the appointment and its imminent implementation.
Chimutsa is seeking an order remitting the succession dispute to the appropriate authority for reconsideration in accordance with the law and customary practices.
He wants all interested parties to be given an opportunity to make representations before a fresh decision is made on who should occupy the Chamutsa chieftainship.
The allegations contained in the court application are yet to be determined, and the challenge does not amount to a finding that Mavhurudza's appointment was unlawful.
Source - Mirror
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
