HARARE, Mar. 21 (NewsDay Live) - DETHRONED Chief Katerere has suffered a blow after his appeal at the Supreme Court was thrown out with costs after it came out that his application was not in order.
The Supreme Court appeal was heard on Friday before judge Justice Felistus Chatukuta and Justice Muchena.
The dethroned Chief Katerere, born Alexio Nyamhute, was appealing against Mutare High Court judge Justice Isaac Muzenda’s ruling, which declared his appointment as unlawful and invalid.
Justice Muzenda last year said the appointment violated the dynasty succession principles as it required the involvement of spirit mediums.
Nyamhute was appointed Chief Katerere in 2023, after taking over from Clepaton Chifodya, who had replaced Elias Matambo Chifodya.
Nyamhute’s appointment was challenged by Pius Mupunwa, a village head under Chief Katerere and a member of the Dembetembe royal family.
Keep Reading
- Disappointing crowd at Magacha album launch
- One stage, 3 artistes: Mhere’s album launch a success
- All set for Mhere album launch
- Rave reviews charm Moyo
Mupunwa claimed that a fact-finding commission sent by the government to the Katerere clan disregarded the sacred role of masvikiro (spirit mediums) in Hwesa or Katerere traditional culture.
He told the court that according to the Hwesa culture, the spirit mediums are the ones that choose the chief.
In his ruling, Justice Muzenda said the appointment of Chief Katerere should be set aside and a vacancy be declared by the government.
However, the appeal at the apex court yesterday went up in smoke after it was thrown out.
Prominent Mutare lawyer Christopher Ndlovu said they had filed a notice of objection against Nyamhute.
“Alexio Nyamhute’s notice of appeal has been thrown out at the Supreme Court with costs after we had filed a notice of objection,” Ndlovu said.
NewsDay Live is in possession of the notice of objection which reads: “The appellant (Alexio Chinongwa Nyamhute) filed with the honourable court of a notice of appeal on August 29, 2024. Appellant proceeded to serve the same on the Respondent’s Legal Counsel on the same date,” Ndlovu said.
“The notice of appeal that was filed and issued with this honourable court does not comply with Rule 31(1) of the Supreme court rules.
“In particular, the notice of appeal was not signed either by the appellant or by his legal practitioner.”
The objection also argued that the appellant filed the notice of appeal after 17 days and clearly failed to adhere to the 15 days prescribed by Rule 38(1)a of the Supreme Court rules.
