News / National
Court reserves judgment in Negomo chieftainship wrangle
02 Jun 2016 at 06:25hrs | Views
The High Court has reserved judgment in a matter in which a Chiweshe man Mr Tafaneyi David Gweshe is contesting the legality of the appointment of Mr Lucius Chitsinde as acting Chief Negomo.
Mr Gweshe argued in court that the members of the Negomo family where Mr Chitsinde hails from, were not the rightful heirs to the chieftainship in the Negomo area. Instead, Mr Gweshe argued that a chief must be chosen from the Gweshe-Shambare family.
In the court challenge, the acting Chief Negomo (Mr Chitsinde), Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing and President Mugabe were listed as respondents.
Mr Gweshe, who is represented by Mbidzo, Muchadehama and Makoni law firm, wants the court to compel the Local Government minister to convene a meeting and formally appoint a chief from the Gweshe-Shambare family.
He argued that Mr Chitsinde was not the rightful chief for the area in question.
"I submit that the proper chief for the area currently under Chief Negomo namely Negomo area should be under the chieftainship of Gwangwadza.
"In terms of Shona traditional practices and inheritance, the chieftainship should be under the Gweshe family who are the direct descendants of Gwangwadza," read Mr Gweshe's affidavit.
Mr Chitsinde, through his lawyer Mr Tapson Dzvetero of Antonion and Dzvetero Legal Practitioners, opposed the application arguing that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction to determine chieftainship wrangles.
"It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the issue of appointment and removal of traditional leaders and issues incidental thereto, to the extent contemplated by Section 283, supra, has been ousted by the new Constitution.
"The appointment, removal and suspension of chiefs and disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of traditional leaders must be done by the President.
"Third defendant (Mr Chitsinde) contends for a good measure that the use of the word 'MUST' is peremptory rather than directory and requires strict compliance," reads the heads or argument filed by Mr Dzvetero.
President Mugabe, in his opposing papers, urged the High Court to dismiss an application on the same basis that the court has no jurisdiction.
The President said in terms of Section 283 of the Constitution, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes concerning the appointment, removal and suspension of chiefs.
Mr Gweshe argued in court that the members of the Negomo family where Mr Chitsinde hails from, were not the rightful heirs to the chieftainship in the Negomo area. Instead, Mr Gweshe argued that a chief must be chosen from the Gweshe-Shambare family.
In the court challenge, the acting Chief Negomo (Mr Chitsinde), Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing and President Mugabe were listed as respondents.
Mr Gweshe, who is represented by Mbidzo, Muchadehama and Makoni law firm, wants the court to compel the Local Government minister to convene a meeting and formally appoint a chief from the Gweshe-Shambare family.
He argued that Mr Chitsinde was not the rightful chief for the area in question.
"I submit that the proper chief for the area currently under Chief Negomo namely Negomo area should be under the chieftainship of Gwangwadza.
"In terms of Shona traditional practices and inheritance, the chieftainship should be under the Gweshe family who are the direct descendants of Gwangwadza," read Mr Gweshe's affidavit.
Mr Chitsinde, through his lawyer Mr Tapson Dzvetero of Antonion and Dzvetero Legal Practitioners, opposed the application arguing that the High Court no longer has jurisdiction to determine chieftainship wrangles.
"It is submitted that the jurisdiction of the courts to deal with the issue of appointment and removal of traditional leaders and issues incidental thereto, to the extent contemplated by Section 283, supra, has been ousted by the new Constitution.
"The appointment, removal and suspension of chiefs and disputes concerning the appointment, suspension and removal of traditional leaders must be done by the President.
"Third defendant (Mr Chitsinde) contends for a good measure that the use of the word 'MUST' is peremptory rather than directory and requires strict compliance," reads the heads or argument filed by Mr Dzvetero.
President Mugabe, in his opposing papers, urged the High Court to dismiss an application on the same basis that the court has no jurisdiction.
The President said in terms of Section 283 of the Constitution, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain disputes concerning the appointment, removal and suspension of chiefs.
Source - the herald
