This is true, but I’d like to point out that the opposite has also happened, where chaos was caused by upholding established borders. When Africa was decolonised in a relatively short time during the 1960s, it was decided that the newly independent countries would retain the borders that they had when they were colonies - a principle known in international law as uti possidetis. But those borders had been drawn in the 19th century as a result of negotiations between European colonial powers, or simply as a result of the coincidence of which areas was colonised when by whom. There was little regard to the ethnic make-up of the population living within these borders. Much of the neverending warfare in large parts of Africa is still a result of how these borders were drawn.
True, but unlike Europe or elsewhere, it mostly seems to be internal strife by breakaway segments or striving for (ethnic?) dominance, more than A coveting some or all of B. i don’t see a lot of the sort of claims similar to where, for example, Germany claimed Sudetenland or Alsace or the road to Danzig, Or Saddam claiming Kuwait, or how Russia today claims Crimea and the rest of Ukraine. Rather, it seem the principle of established borders holds far better among African leaders than the rest of the world.
The only border issue I can think of was the dispute over a deserted area between Egypt and Sudan.