Dethroned Chief Marange appeals to Supreme Court

By The Zimbabwe Independent and The Standard | Sep. 19, 2017 | 2 Min read

BY CHARLES LAITON THE recently-dethroned Chief Marange, born Bernard Murwira Marange, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the nullification of his appointment as substantive chief by the High Court, arguing that the courts had no jurisdiction to deal with chieftainship wrangles. Murwira was installed substantive Chief Marange on October 27 last year, but his appointment was challenged by Zvidzai Dzoma Marange, who cited irregularities in the selection process. This prompted High Court judge, Justice David Mangota, to nullify the appointment on August 28 this year. In his ruling, Justice Mangota said Rural Development, Promotion and Preservation of National Culture and Heritage minister Abednigo Ncube had not handled the matter properly. In his arguments placed before the Supreme Court, Murwira said: “The High Court erred in finding that its jurisdiction to deal with a dispute arising from the appellant’s (Murwira) appointment as a chief had not been ousted by section 283 of the Constitution.” Murwira further argued that Justice Mangota erred in failing to find that a dispute arose at the point when Dzoma challenged his appointment as the chief. He added that it was at that point when Dzoma should have referred the dispute for resolution by President Robert Mugabe, who is cited as the third respondent. “Having found that first respondent had not proven his case, the High Court grossly erred in granting the first respondent relief setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Chief Marange. The High Court further erred in impliedly finding that the appellant’s appointment as Chief Marange was not in accordance with the customs and practices of the Marange people,” he said. However, in his judgment, Justice Mangota said Murwira “missed the point when he submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the application”. “The court does have the requisite jurisdiction to enquire into the conduct of the second respondent (Ncube). It is, at law, permitted to scrutinise the process which the second respondent commenced and drove right through to the nomination by him of the first respondent (Murwira) as the people of Marange’s preferred choice. It (the court) should ascertain if the process which brought about the result which the applicant (Dzoma) complains of was within, or outside the law,” Justice Mangota said. Murwira is represented by T Pfigu Legal Practitioners while Dzoma is represented by Charles Warara. The matter is yet to be set down for hearing

THE recently-dethroned Chief Marange, born Bernard Murwira Marange, has approached the Supreme Court challenging the nullification of his appointment as substantive chief by the High Court, arguing that the courts had no jurisdiction to deal with chieftainship wrangles.

BY CHARLES LAITON

Murwira was installed substantive Chief Marange on October 27 last year, but his appointment was challenged by Zvidzai Dzoma Marange, who cited irregularities in the selection process.

This prompted High Court judge, Justice David Mangota, to nullify the appointment on August 28 this year.

In his ruling, Justice Mangota said Rural Development, Promotion and Preservation of National Culture and Heritage minister Abednigo Ncube had not handled the matter properly.

In his arguments placed before the Supreme Court, Murwira said: “The High Court erred in finding that its jurisdiction to deal with a dispute arising from the appellant’s (Murwira) appointment as a chief had not been ousted by section 283 of the Constitution.”

Murwira further argued that Justice Mangota erred in failing to find that a dispute arose at the point when Dzoma challenged his appointment as the chief. He added that it was at that point when Dzoma should have referred the dispute for resolution by President Robert Mugabe, who is cited as the third respondent.

“Having found that first respondent had not proven his case, the High Court grossly erred in granting the first respondent relief setting aside the appointment of the appellant as Chief Marange. The High Court further erred in impliedly finding that the appellant’s appointment as Chief Marange was not in accordance with the customs and practices of the Marange people,” he said.

Keep Reading

However, in his judgment, Justice Mangota said Murwira “missed the point when he submitted that the court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the application”.

“The court does have the requisite jurisdiction to enquire into the conduct of the second respondent (Ncube). It is, at law, permitted to scrutinise the process which the second respondent commenced and drove right through to the nomination by him of the first respondent (Murwira) as the people of Marange’s preferred choice. It (the court) should ascertain if the process which brought about the result which the applicant (Dzoma) complains of was within, or outside the law,” Justice Mangota said.

Murwira is represented by T Pfigu Legal Practitioners while Dzoma is represented by Charles Warara. The matter is yet to be set down for hearing