Minister barred over unpaid fees

Story By Desmond Chingarande

Local Government and Public Works minister Daniel Garwe cannot pursue a legal challenge over a chieftainship dispute in Masvingo until he meets two conditions. The High Court ordered him to pay more than US$4 700 in outstanding legal costs and to withdraw a letter directing that the selection of the substantive chief should continue.

Justice Christopher Dube-Banda ruled that the minister approached the court with dirty hands because he failed to settle costs awarded in two previous cases.

Furthermore, the court cited a letter dated April 1, 2026, in which the minister urged the continuation of the selection process despite an existing court order prohibiting it.

As a result, Dube-Banda stayed the minister’s application for condonation and an extension of time to file an application for rescission of a default judgment. The stay remains until he pays the outstanding costs and withdraws the letter.

The costs stem from two previous court cases in which Piason Maputsenyika successfully challenged steps towards upgrading the Muroyi headmanship in Masvingo to a chieftainship. The court awarded Maputsenyika US$3 612,78 in costs in one case and US$1 134,15 in another, which brings the outstanding amount to US$4 746,93.

However, the minister has not paid the taxed costs, even though he knew the amounts due, the court heard.

Dube-Banda said it would be unfair for the minister to keep instituting litigation against Maputsenyika without first settling the costs from the earlier proceedings.

In addition, the court found that the minister’s ministry breached an existing interdict when it wrote to the chairman of the Provincial Assembly of Chiefs for Masvingo on April 1, 2026, advising that the selection of a substantive Chief Muroyi should continue.

The court granted the interdict on August 28, 2025. It barred the minister, the President, the provincial chiefs’ assembly chairperson, Chief Nhema, Headman Muroyi, and the Zaka district development coordinator from convening meetings, conducting consultations, or taking other steps to identify, recommend, or appoint a substantive Chief Muroyi. It also barred any communications intended to revive or implement the decision to upgrade the headmanship to a chieftainship.

Dube-Banda said the April letter sought to restart the selection process, which violated that order.

“This violation supports the first respondent’s argument that the applicant is approaching the court with dirty hands,” the judge said.

For his part, the minister argued that the doctrine of dirty hands did not apply because no one had selected or appointed a chief. Moreover, his lawyer submitted that if someone had breached the court order, Maputsenyika’s remedy was to seek contempt proceedings.

But the judge rejected that argument. He found that the letter itself breached the interdict, regardless of whether anyone had made an appointment.

“This is a court of law and as such cannot connive or condone the applicant’s open defiance of the law,” the judge ruled.

The dispute began in June 2025, when Maputsenyika filed a court application challenging the minister’s recommendation to the President to upgrade the Muroyi headmanship to a chieftainship. In the main case, the High Court set aside both the minister’s recommendation and the President’s subsequent decision to approve the upgrade.

Later, the minister applied to rescind that judgment, but the court struck the application off the roll in February 2026 after it upheld an objection that he had failed to comply with the High Court Rules. Subsequently, he asked the court for permission to file a fresh rescission application outside the prescribed time limits.

However, Dube-Banda ruled that the application cannot proceed until the minister settles the outstanding costs and withdraws the April 1 letter. Although Maputsenyika asked the court to strike the application off the roll, the court instead stayed proceedings until the minister meets the two conditions.

Finally, the court ordered the minister to pay the costs of the present application on a party-and-party scale.

Reporting based on original coverage by Standard.