Examining Effectiveness of Strategies used by Traditional Chiefs in Land Resource Conflict Resolutions: A Case Study Mungule Chiefdom

Abstract

The Ministry of lands together with Ministry of local Government and Housing have employed various strategies to control the situation such as; the introduction of the land’s tribunal, the use of local authorities in dispute resolution cases and various revised Acts of the constitution. Despite all the provisions of the 1995 Lands Act and all other efforts, land disputes have continued to happen as people continue to remain homeless and experience arbitrary land displacements following excessive bureaucracy and rigid conformity to formal rules resulting in underdevelopment. In this case, the target population of the study are traditional leaders in Mungule. According to Adam and Kamuzora, (2018) “a sample refers to a number of people or things taken from a large group and used in tests to provide information about the group.” The sample included 100 traditional leaders. In order for the researcher to reduce the amount of data needed by considering only data from a sub group rather than all possible cases or elements, it is imperative that the researcher uses sampling techniques that provide a range of methods in collecting the needed. Accordingly, this study used simple random sampling technique to obtain the sample. Simple random sampling technique was used to randomly sample the traditional leaders. Each farmer was assigned a unique number, and the numbers were placed in a container (a fish bowl) and thoroughly mixed. The cross-tabulation results demonstrate a strong association between awareness of administrative land use strategies and the perception that these strategies have reduced land disputes in Mungule chiefdom. Among respondents who were aware of the local authority\'s strategies, 86.8% (33 out of 38) confirmed that the strategies had effectively reduced land disputes. In contrast, 100% (12 out of 12) of those not aware of the strategies indicated that the strategies had not reduced disputes. Chi-square test results in Table 5.4 support the statistical significance of this association. The Pearson Chi-Square value of 30.650 with 1 degree of freedom yielded a p-value of .000 of Perceived quality of implementation of land use strategies. The crosstabulation analysis shows a noticeable trend linking the perceived quality of land use strategy implementation to levels of satisfaction with the authority’s interventions. Among respondents who rated the implementation quality as Good, 58.3% were satisfied and 41.7% were Neutral. Of those who viewed the implementation as Excellent, 71.4% were Very Satisfied while 28.6% were satisfied. Conversely, 100% of respondents who perceived the implementation as Very Poor or Poor reported being Not Satisfied or only Slightly Satisfied. No satisfaction was expressed among those who viewed the implementation as Poor or Very Poor. The Pearson Chi-Square value (?² = 92.948, df = 16, p < 0.001) reveals a statistically significant association between the perceived quality of land use strategy implementation and satisfaction with authority interventions.

Introduction

The text examines land conflicts and their management in Zambia, with particular focus on Mungule Chiefdom in Chibombo District, Central Zambia. It explains that land disputes are a widespread global problem caused by factors such as inequality, insecure land ownership, weak governance, competing interests, population growth, land grabbing, inheritance disputes, boundary disagreements, and unclear land-use regulations.

In Zambia, the Lands Act of 1995 provides for two land-tenure systems: statutory tenure, administered by government authorities, and customary tenure, administered by traditional leaders according to customary laws. However, weaknesses in land administration and management have contributed to continuing land disputes, creating negative effects on social, economic, and community development.

The study's main objective is to assess the effectiveness of strategies used by traditional chiefs to resolve land-resource conflicts in Mungule Chiefdom. Specifically, it seeks to:

1. Identify the major actors involved in managing land disputes.
2. Determine the causes of land disputes.
3. Identify strategies used by traditional chiefs to resolve land conflicts.
4. Assess the effectiveness of local administrative land-use strategies in reducing disputes.

The study is guided by Ribot and Peluso's Theory of Access, which explains conflicts by examining how institutions, power, social relationships, and economic interests influence people's access to and control over resources. The theory also highlights how poverty, competition for land, changing land-tenure systems, and exclusion from resources can contribute to conflict.

The literature review shows that land disputes can occur between individuals, families, communities, governments, investors, and traditional authorities. Common disputes include boundary conflicts, inheritance and succession disputes, illegal occupation, land ownership disagreements, and competing land-use interests. Weak institutions, corruption, political influence, population growth, urbanization, and insecure tenure can make these conflicts worse.

The research uses a case study design focusing on traditional leaders in Mungule Chiefdom. The study targets traditional leaders, with a sample of 100 respondents selected through simple random sampling. Primary data were collected using questionnaires containing both open- and closed-ended questions. Data were analyzed using quantitative and qualitative methods, including SPSS, Microsoft Excel, and manual content analysis.

Finally, the study emphasizes research ethics, including protecting respondents' privacy, maintaining anonymity, explaining the purpose of the research, and ensuring that participation was voluntary.

Conclusion

According to the results, traditional Chief overwhelmingly emerged as the most influential, with 60.0% of respondents identifying her as the primary authority in resolving land disputes. Village headmen were cited by 20.0% of respondents, reflecting a supportive but less dominant role, likely functioning under the guidance of traditional chiefs. Local government institutions accounted for 10.0%. Similarly, 6.0% identified the land tribunal as influential, indicating a minor but present statutory role. NGOs were reported by only 4.0% of respondents. According to the Likert scale, 1 was the highest and 5 the lowest. So, the smallest mean rank indicated the most prominent player in land dispute management. The results showed that traditional chiefs were ranked highest (Mean Rank = 2.51). They were followed by village headmen (Mean Rank = 3.11), and then local government authorities (Mean Rank = 3.23), reflecting a moderate level of involvement. The land tribunal/committee and community members followed closely with mean ranks of 3.71 and 3.83 respectively. NGOs and CSOs were ranked lowest (Mean Rank = 4.61). The findings indicate that multiple land allocations stand out as the leading cause of land disputes in Mungule Chiefdom, accounting for 26.0% of the responses. A community member noted, “Sometimes, two people are given the same piece of land by different leaders, and this creates conflict.” Closely following were boundary-related conflicts, which made up 24.0% of the cases. One respondent remarked, “There are no clear beacons, so everyone keeps shifting their line.” Inheritance disputes also emerged significantly at 22.0%, especially in scenarios where customary norms clash with evolving household structures. Encroachment, cited by 18.0%, points to growing population pressure and informal land grabbing, while chieftaincy-related issues were the least reported at 10.0%, often linked to overlapping jurisdiction or contested traditional authority.The crosstabulation results reveal a statistically significant relationship between the cause of land disputes and how frequently they occur within the community (Chi-square = 101.810, df = 12, p = .000) Boundary disputes (24%) were mostly reported under the rare and moderate frequency categories, with 8 out of 12 respondents indicating they occurred only 1–2 times per year. One community member stated, “It only happens when someone tries to shift the boundary without telling the neighbor.” Multiple allocations (26%) were reported exclusively under the moderate category (3–5 times/year). Inheritance-related disputes (22%) showed a clear association with frequent disputes (6–10 times/year), where 10 of the 11 respondents cited this frequency range. As one respondent put it, “When the owner dies, everyone claims they were promised the land.” Encroachment disputes (18%) spanned the frequent (6–10/year) and very frequent (11+/year) categories. Chieftaincy-related conflicts (10%) appeared exclusively in the very frequent category. A significant proportion (32.0%) identified mediation as the most effective tool used by traditional chiefs in resolving land-related conflicts. Community meetings were the second most cited strategy, accounting for 28.0% of responses. One respondent noted, “When we meet as a community under the chief’s guidance, issues are better understood and quickly resolved.” Boundary demarcation was reported by 20.0% of respondents as an effective strategy. Meanwhile, 12.0% of respondents mentioned the Council (likely referring to traditional councils or local advisory bodies). Finally, other methods accounted for 8.0%, suggesting the presence of less common or context-specific practices outside the mainstream strategies. The Land Dispute Tribunal emerged as the most frequently cited strategy, with 26.0% of respondents acknowledging its implementation. Physical planning was identified by 24.0% of respondents, pointing to the role of spatial land management interventions - such as layout designs and zonal planning - in preventing overlapping claims and confusion over land boundaries. One participant remarked, “Planning the land before allocation has helped reduce unnecessary clashes.” Community education followed closely, cited by 22.0% of respondents. Land audits were acknowledged by 20.0% of the respondents. Lastly, other strategies accounted for 8.0%, implying the existence of less common or possibly emerging interventions outside the main administrative tools. Relationship between Awareness of Administrative Land Use Strategies and Their Perceived Effectiveness in Reducing Land Disputes The cross-tabulation results in Table 5.4 demonstrate a strong association between awareness of administrative land use strategies and the perception that these strategies have reduced land disputes in Mungule Chiefdom. Among respondents who were aware of the local authority\'s strategies, 86.8% (33 out of 38) confirmed that the strategies had effectively reduced land disputes. In contrast, 100% (12 out of 12) of those not aware of the strategies indicated that the strategies had not reduced disputes. Chi-square test results in Table 5.4 support the statistical significance of this association. The Pearson Chi-Square value of 30.650 with 1 degree of freedom yielded a p-value of .000. The crosstabulation analysis shows a noticeable trend linking the perceived quality of land use strategy implementation to levels of satisfaction with the authority’s interventions. Among respondents who rated the implementation quality as Good, 58.3% were satisfied and 41.7% were Neutral. Of those who viewed the implementation as Excellent, 71.4% were Very Satisfied while 28.6% were satisfied. Conversely, 100% of respondents who perceived the implementation as Very Poor or Poor reported being Not Satisfied or only Slightly Satisfied. No satisfaction was expressed among those who viewed the implementation as Poor or Very Poor. The Pearson Chi-Square value (?² = 92.948, df = 16, p < 0.001) reveals a statistically significant association between the perceived quality of land use strategy implementation and satisfaction with authority interventions.

References

[1] Adam, J., & Kamuzora, F. (2008), Research Methods for Business and Social Studies, Muzumbe Book Project, Morogoro, Kenya. [2] Almeida, B. & Wassel, T., (2016). Land Policy Brief –Survey on Land Access to Land, Tenure Security and Land Conflicts in Timor-Leste: The Asia Foundation – Van Vollenhoven Institute, [3] Deininger, K., Hilhorst, T. and Songwe, V., 2014. Identifying and addressing land governance constraints to support intensification and land market operation: Evidence from 10 African countries. Food Policy, 48, pp.76-87. [4] Gwaleba, M. J. and Masum, F. (2018). \'Participation of Informal Settlers in Participatory Land Use Planning Project in Pursuit of Tenure Security\', Urban Forum, 29(2), pp. 169–184. [5] Hall, D., Hirsch, P. and Li, T.M., 2011. Powers of exclusion: Land dilemmas in Southeast Asia. Singapore: NUS Press and Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, United States of America. [6] Kenya (2010) The Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law). Available at: http://www.Kenyalaw.org Accessed: 10 August 2026) [7] Kombo, D.K. and Tromp, D.L.A., 2006. Proposal and thesis writing: an introduction. Nairobi: Paulines Publications Africa. [8] LeGrand, C., van Isschot, L. and Riaño-Alcalá, P. (2017) \'Land, justice, and memory: challenges for peace in Colombia\', Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 42(3), pp. 259–276. [9] Mugenda & Mugenda. (1999). Research Methods: Quantitative and Qualiitative Research Methods. Nairobi: African Centre for Research Methodologies. [10] Mugenda, O., & Mugenda, A. (2003). Research Methods, Qualitative and Qualitative and Quatitative Approaches. UK: Magenta Publishing Ltd. [11] Mutava , J. M. (2016). Resolving land related conflict in kenya: the role of African Union framework and guidelines on land policy. Nairobi Kenya: Unpublished Masters Thesis. [12] Mutune et al. (2017). What Rights and Benefits? The Implementation of Participatory Forest Management in Kenya: The Case of Eastern Mau Forest Reserve. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, Vol 36, 3, 230-249. [13] Mwita, J. (2017). Ethnic Land Conflict a Constant Struggle in Kenya: A Critical inquest on the role played by the Methodist church in Meru County, Kenya. [14] Myers, R. and Hansen, C.P., 2019. Revisiting a theory of access: A review. Society and Natural Resources, 33(2), pp.146–166. [15] Oso, W. Y., & Onen, D. (2009). A General Guide to Writing Research Proposal and Report: A Handbook for Beginning Researchers (2nd rev. ed.). The Jomo Kenyatta Foundation. [16] Pons-Vignon, N. and Solignac Lecomte, H.-B. (2004) Land, Violent Conflict and Development. OECD Development Centre Working Papers, No. 233. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Available at: OECD iLibrary. [17] Ribot, J.C. and Peluso, N.L. (2003) \'A theory of access\', Rural Sociology, 68(2), pp. 153–181 [18] Rugadya, M.A et al, (2020). Land Use Policy, Pergamon, Vol. 94. [19] Rutherford, B. (2017) Farm Labor Struggles in Zimbabwe: The Ground of Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press [20] Turner V.W, (1969). The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure, Aldine Transaction (Chicago / Brunswick and London), London, United Kingdom. [21] Wehrmann, B. (2006) Cadastre in Itself Won\'t Solve the Problem: The Role of Institutional Change and Psychological Motivations in Land Conflicts – Cases from Africa, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) Article of the Month, March 2006. Available at: fig.net (Accessed: 10 October, 2025). [22] World Bank (2002). World Development Indicators 2002. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank Open Knowledge Repository. [23] Zambia Land Alliance, (2010). Land issues, customary tenure and pastoral/smallholder rights in Zambia. Lusaka: Zambia.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Elijah Miyemba, Dr. Kelvin Chibomba. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.