The High Court has breathed new life into a long-running dispute over the Binga chieftaincy after granting a key application for condonation that allows a rival claimant to proceed with a challenge against the appointment of Chief Binga.
In a ruling handed down in Bulawayo on May 18, Justice Evangelista Kabasa condoned delays by Peter Mweembe in filing his review application and granted him an extension of time to bring the matter before the court.
The judge also ordered Grey Sikalelu Muleya, the current Chief Binga and third respondent in the matter, to pay the costs of the condonation application.
The ruling marks the latest development in a succession battle that has simmered for years and could ultimately determine who is lawfully entitled to occupy one of Matabeleland North’s most important traditional leadership positions.
Mweembe is challenging the process that led to Muleya’s appointment as substantive Chief Binga.
He argued that the selection process did not properly comply with traditional succession principles and failed to adequately consider historical records relating to the Binga royal lineage.
The condonation ruling is significant because it clears a procedural hurdle that could have prevented the matter from being heard on its merits.
The court condoned Mweembe’s failure to comply with time limits contained in an earlier High Court order and granted him five days to file his review application.
- Fresh land invasions hit Whitecliff
- Pomona cash row escalates
- Border Timbers targets European markets
- SA name strong A side for Zim tour
Keep Reading
The dispute is now set to proceed to the next stage where the court will consider whether the appointment process should be reviewed and potentially overturned.
Court papers show that Mweembe, represented by Nqobani Ncube, is seeking the review and setting aside of a recommendation made by the Matabeleland North Provincial Assembly of Chiefs between March 31 and April 2, 2022.
That recommendation ultimately led to Muleya’s appointment as substantive Chief Binga.
Muleya is represented by Prince Dubeko Sibanda.
The applicant contends that the decision was reached through a flawed process and wants the court to nullify both the recommendation and the subsequent appointment.
As part of his challenge, Mweembe has placed before the court a range of documents, including archival records relating to the Binga chieftaincy and a royal family succession tree.
The documents also include minutes from meetings involving traditional leaders and correspondence from members of the royal family.
The dispute centres on the interpretation of customary succession rules and the determination of who is the rightful heir to the chieftaincy.
In a draft order attached to the review application, Mweembe asks the court to set aside the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs’ recommendation and Muleya’s appointment.
He is also seekingan order directing the Minister responsible for local government and traditional leadership matters to reconvene the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs to reconsider the dispute.
Under the proposal, the assembly would be required to make fresh recommendations which would then be submitted to the president for a final determination in terms of the Traditional Leaders Act.
The case has attracted considerable attention in Binga district where traditional leaders continue to play a central role in community governance, cultural affairs and local development.
Disputes over traditional leadership positions are often sensitive because they involve questions of heritage, royal lineage and customary law.
The Binga matter is no exception with rival interpretations emerging over the correct line of succession.
