A DISPUTE over the appointment of Chief Nyajena has spilled to the courts, with two Masvingo brothers challenging Last Dzivakwe’s elevation to the chieftainship and citing President Emmerson Mnangagwa as a respondent.
Isaac and Haruzivi Jerera have approached the High Court seeking a declaratory order setting aside Dzivakwe’s appointment, arguing that the process was procedurally flawed and violated customary law and statutory provisions governing the appointment of traditional leaders.
The brothers cited Mnangagwa, the Local Government and Public Works ministry, secretary for Local Government, Dzivakwe in his capacity as Chief Nyajena, the chief director for traditional leadership support services and the National Council of Chiefs as respondents.
In court papers, the applicants said they were descendants of the late Chief Nyajena through either of his two sons, Mupandasekwa or Mateveke.
Isaac, in an affidavit supporting the application, said he was a descendant of Mupandasekwa, whom he described as his great-great-grandfather.
He said the President was cited because, under section 283(a)(ii) of the Constitution and section 3(2) of the Traditional Leaders Act [Chapter 29:17], he was the appointing authority for traditional leaders, including Chief Nyajena.
Keep Reading
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Isaac argued that Dzivakwe's appointment was unlawful because no valid selection process was conducted in accordance with the customs and traditions of the Nyajena chieftainship.
He further alleged that the appointment violated section 283(a)(i) of the Constitution and section 3(2) of the Traditional Leaders Act because authorities ignored the recommendation made by the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs on October 10, 2025, that the chieftainship should remain within the Madzore sub-clan.
According to the application, Dzivakwe is neither the eldest son nor an eligible candidate under Nyajena clan customs and traditions.
Isaac also argued that Dzivakwe was appointed, while a dispute over succession was pending before the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs and, by extension, the National Council of Chiefs.
He claimed that no meeting was held on or before October 10, 2025, at which Dzivakwe was nominated or selected as Chief Nyajena, adding that his imposition, therefore, constituted procedural irregularity and legal impropriety on the part of the respondents.
He further argued that the President and the other respondents failed in their duty to act lawfully, reasonably and fairly by disregarding objections raised during the selection process.
Isaac said Nyajena customs require that the selection of a chief be conducted publicly at a meeting attended by members of all affected houses.
He told the court that the late Chief Nyajena, Dzingayi Zengeya, came from the Mateveke house and that, following his death, the chieftainship was due to rotate to the Mupandasekwa house.
Within that house, he said, it was the turn of the Madzore sub-house to nominate the next chief after the completion of a two-year mourning period.
Following consultations, Nhamo Jerera of the Madzore sub-house was nominated but died in January 2024 before assuming office.
A subsequent meeting nominated Nashe Tungamirayi, also from the Madzore sub-house, but he died in April 2025 before taking up the position.
On July 1, 2025, another meeting was convened to nominate a replacement from the Madzore sub-house. However, concerns were raised over the deaths of previous nominees, leading some members to propose that the chieftainship moves to another sub-house.
As a result, Dhoba Marumbwa of the Mupfurashanga sub-house was nominated, being the eldest male in that lineage.
The applicants argue that by appointing Dzivakwe, the respondents ignored recommendations made by traditional leadership structures and failed to follow established succession procedure.
Isaac alleged that Dzivakwe’s appointment did not emerge from a traditional public gathering, known as a dare, but instead resulted from “backdoor manoeuvring in closed offices”.
He said the recommendations of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs were never considered by the President before the appointment was made.
Isaac added that the position remains that the appointment in question cannot withstand legal scrutiny.
The matter is pending before the courts.