​Masvingo private school operators and local communities may see a reinforcement of constitutional rights over traditional mandates after the High Court set aside a community court summons issued by Chief Murinye against the head of Riverton Academy, raising questions about the boundaries of a Chief’s judicial powers and the right to a fair trial.

​The High Court of Zimbabwe in Masvingo, presided over by Justice Dube-Banda, officially set aside a community court summons issued by Chief Murinye (Ephias Munodawafa) targeting Philimon Mutangiri, the authority responsible for Riverton Academy of Schools.

The legal battle began in January 2026 when the Chief blocked parents from dropping off children at Riverton Academy Extension, claiming he was not consulted before its construction. After the High Court issued an interim interdict stopping the blockade, the Chief countered by summoning Mutangiri to his own community court on accusations of building on sacred land and insulting his office. Despite knowing the matter was under High Court review, the Chief went ahead, held a community court session, and granted a default judgment against Mutangiri. Justice Dube-Banda declared that entire process invalid, ruling that a lower traditional court cannot be used to undercut pending superior court litigation.  

​The High Court quashed the Chief’s February 1 summons and nullified the subsequent default judgment he issued. Chief Murinye must also pay the legal costs on a party-and-party scale. The long-term status of the school’s land authorization remains to be fully argued on the return date of the original interdict case.

​Addressing whether a Chief can judge a case where he is the victim, the High Court firmly clarified that when a chief feels personally insulted or undermined, he becomes an interested party. He cannot issue a summons and then sit on the bench to decide the outcome, as it completely violates the principles of natural justice. Regarding what happens to the default judgment the Chief already passed, it is legally dead. The High Court amended the draft order to ensure that everything Chief Murinye did during his community court session in defiance of the ongoing review is classified as a nullity.  

​Justice Dube-Banda noted that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court enables it to hold the scales of justice where no law provides directly for such a given situation, adding that "this inherent jurisdiction of this court may only be excluded by the constitution itself or by statute. It is because of this reservoir of power that this court has jurisdiction to review and set aside a summons of a lower court on the grounds that it is invalid, irregular, or an abuse of process".  

​The judge strongly condemned the Chief's attempt to use his community court to resolve a matter already before the high court, stating, "My view is that the Chief seeks, by the summons he issued, to undercut and undermine the process in HCMSC 14/26, and such cannot be countenanced by this court. In seeking to determine, in his community court, the very issue that is pending determination in this court, the Chief acted outside the requirements of the law".

​On the issue of the Chief acting as both accuser and judge, the court noted that "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. It is in this context that I take the view that the Chief, being an aggrieved party regarding the charge of uttering words undermining his office, is disqualified to preside over the matter himself". Justice Dube-Banda further emphasized that "the nemo iudex in sua causa principle applies with force in this case, no one is permitted to be adjudicator in his own case... In such a case, customary law must give way to the constitutional values of a fair trial before an independent and impartial court".  

​The court criticized the Chief's decision to rush through a default judgment while the High Court was reviewing the matter, observing that "proceeding with the matter notwithstanding that an application with a bearing on the matter is pending finalization before this court on the grounds that an application is not a court order is inappropriate. It suggests that the intention would be to render the process before this court nugatory and a brutum fulmen". The judge concluded that "this is a text-book case where this court must invoke its inherent power to stop a grave injustice".  

​The next test will be the finalization of the main application, which will show whether the school's construction fully complied with local government planning regulations, permanently settling the land dispute between Riverton Academy and the traditional leadership.