MASVINGO – The High Court of Zimbabwe has delivered a stinging rebuke to Chief Murinye, ruling that a traditional leader cannot act as both the complainant and the judge in the same legal dispute. The landmark judgment, handed down by Justice Christopher Dube-Banda, effectively strips the Masvingo chief of the unchecked judicial power he attempted to wield against a local school head in a long-running and bitter land row.
The ruling comes after Ephias Munodawafa, who holds the title of Chief Murinye, issued a summons against Philimon Mutangiri, the head of Riverton Academy Extension. The Chief had accused Mutangiri of building a school on sacred land and of making statements that undermined his traditional authority. However, the High Court found that the Chief’s actions violated basic constitutional rights to a fair and impartial hearing.
“In terms of section 69(2) of the Constitution, the applicant has a right to a fair hearing before an impartial court. In casu, the Chief is the complainant and judicial officer in the same matter,” Justice Dube-Banda stated in his ruling. He added that it is a fundamental principle of justice that no person is permitted to be the adjudicator in their own case.
The court was particularly critical of the Chief’s attempt to distinguish between his personal interests and his official duties as a traditional leader. The judge dismissed this argument as a “distinction without a difference,” noting that the Chief remained the same individual regardless of which hat he claimed to be wearing. “He has an interest in the matter in which he has issued a summons and intends to preside over, and its outcome,” the judge remarked.
The Blockade and the Isuzu
The legal battle is the latest chapter in a saga that reached a boiling point earlier this year. In a dramatic display of authority, Chief Murinye used his government-issued Isuzu vehicle—which notably lacked number plates—to blockade the entrance to Riverton Academy Extension. The incident occurred on a Sunday, just as parents were arriving to drop off their children for the start of the new school term.
Witnesses described a scene of chaos as the Chief’s vehicle sat across the road, causing traffic jams that stretched for over a kilometre. Parents were ordered to turn back, with the Chief asserting that the school would not open because Mutangiri had failed to seek his permission to build on the land. He claimed the construction was illegal and lacked the necessary paperwork.
The blockade only ended after police intervention, which saw the Chief’s vehicle removed to allow access to the institution. The Minister of State for Masvingo Provincial Affairs, Ezra Chadzamira, was forced to step in to mediate the crisis. Following a meeting—which the Chief reportedly stormed out of—the Minister clarified that while construction had started before all paperwork was finalised, the school was following the correct legal channels.
“We do not encourage illegal work. As a province, we follow the legal procedures of the government and the development that is encouraged by the President,” Chadzamira said. “The paperwork is in order. The applications and the approval are there. It is just that the construction of the school has preceded the paperwork.”
Allegations of Extortion
While the Chief frames the dispute as a matter of protecting sacred grazing land, Philimon Mutangiri has presented a much darker version of events. Mutangiri has publicly accused the traditional leader of extortion, claiming that the Chief’s opposition to the school only began after his financial demands were no longer met.
Mutangiri alleges that the Chief later returned with even more ambitious demands, insisting that the school sign a contract guaranteeing free enrolment for all of his children. When the school management rejected this demand, the Chief allegedly began his campaign to shut the institution down.
“The argument that there is a difference between him as a person and him as a chief is a distinction without a difference. He is the same person,” the High Court noted, indirectly touching upon the personal nature of these disputes.
A History of Controversy
This is far from the first time that Chief Murinye has found himself at the centre of a national storm. To many in Zimbabwe, he is a man of contradictions: a traditional leader who has occasionally shown remarkable bravery in challenging the political establishment, but who also stands accused of bullying his own subjects and overstepping his legal boundaries.
In late 2021, Chief Murinye became an overnight sensation after a video of him blasting the government went viral. Speaking at a funeral, he launched a scathing attack on President Emmerson Mnangagwa and the ruling Zanu-PF party over rampant corruption. He warned that the President risked losing the 2023 elections if he did not “clean up his house.”
“Mnangagwa has a very good vision towards Zimbabwe, it’s just that he is surrounded by thieves and corrupt people,” the Chief said at the time. He described the houses in wealthy Harare suburbs like Borrowdale and Glen Lorne as symbols of “obscene wealth and corruption,” contrasting them with the poverty of his people.
The speech was met with a furious reaction from the government. Vice President Constantino Chiwenga issued a stern warning to traditional leaders, suggesting that those who spoke out against the state could be investigated and even dethroned. “This is not the way things are done,” Chiwenga told a gathering of chiefs. Despite the threats, Murinye’s outburst earned him a degree of respect from those frustrated by the country’s economic woes.
Clashes at Funerals
However, the Chief’s penchant for confrontation has also led to physical altercations. In June 2023, he was reportedly assaulted by villagers in Village 33B after he tried to halt a funeral that was already in progress. The Chief claimed the burial was taking place on sacred land within his jurisdiction without his authority.
The situation turned violent when villagers, who argued the land was actually under the jurisdiction of another chief, pursued Murinye. The traditional leader was forced to flee on foot to escape the angry crowd. More than a dozen villagers were later arrested and convicted of assault, but the incident highlighted the deep-seated resentment some locals feel toward his style of leadership.
The High Court’s recent decision to quash his summons against Mutangiri seems to reflect a growing judicial impatience with such overreach. Justice Dube-Banda noted that the Chief’s attempt to hold a community court hearing while the matter was already before the High Court was a “text-book case” of an attempt to interfere with the course of justice.
“Once this court is seized with a matter, all matters having a bearing on the application before it pending before lower courts and tribunals must stall,” the judge stated.
The Constitutional Boundary
The ruling serves as a vital reminder of the limits of traditional authority in a modern constitutional democracy. While Zimbabwe’s Constitution recognises the role of chiefs and customary law, it makes it clear that these institutions are subordinate to the supreme law of the land.
The High Court found that Chief Murinye had granted a default judgment against Mutangiri even after being served with the application challenging his authority. This flagrant disregard for legal procedure was cited as a reason for the court to invoke its “inherent power to stop a grave injustice.”
As it stands, Riverton Academy Extension has been allowed to continue operating as a “satellite school” while its final paperwork is processed. Minister Chadzamira has assured parents that the institution is legal, despite the Chief’s continued efforts to lobby the President to have it closed.
For the parents and pupils of Riverton Academy, the High Court’s decision provides a much-needed sense of security. For Chief Murinye, however, it is a clear signal that the days of acting as both the law and the judge in his own backyard are over. The man who once warned the President to “clean his house” has now been told, in no uncertain terms, to get his own legal house in order.
The Chief has been ordered to pay the legal costs of the application, a final financial sting in a case that has seen his authority significantly diminished by the very legal system he sought to bypass. In the end, the High Court has reminded the nation that no matter how high a traditional leader may sit, they are never above the Constitution.