Alfred Kushamisa Mwazha and 7 Others v African Apostolic Church (Vapostora Ve Africa) and Ernest Mhambare

This was an urgent chamber application by eight applicants seeking to stay the execution of a default judgment granted by MANGOTA J in HC 537/22 pending determination of their rescission application filed under HC 4457/22. The parties had a long litigation history with numerous pending matters before the High Court. The HC 537/22 order directed applicants not to visit the first respondent church without consent of leadership and not to convene meetings or visit shrines or places of worship. The applicants were served with the HC 537/22 order on 4 July 2022 but did not comply and stayed put at the shrines. The respondents alleged that this was the third court order the applicants had defied, including a Supreme Court judgment of 14 October 2021 recognizing Archbishop Ernest Paul Mwazha as church leader, and an interdict by MANYANGADZE J on 28 October 2022 barring them from holding services at Ndarikure Shrine. Despite these orders, the first applicant continued to hold himself out as church leader and applicants continued holding meetings at the shrines.

• Whether the applicants approached the court with dirty hands by defying previous court orders
• Whether the court should exercise its jurisdiction where litigants have not complied with existing court orders
• Whether interim relief staying execution of a judgment should be granted to applicants who have not complied with that judgment

The court upheld the point in limine of dirty hands and ordered: (1) The court withdraws its jurisdiction on account of applicant's dirty hands; (2) Applicants to pay respondents' costs. The court did not consider the other points in limine or the merits.

A court will withdraw its jurisdiction and refuse to entertain an application where the applicants approach the court with dirty hands by defying existing court orders. The principle that citizens must obey the law first and argue afterwards requires compliance with court orders even where a litigant disagrees with them, with redress to be sought through proper legal channels such as appeal or review. Litigants who are guilty of lack of probity or honesty in respect of circumstances causing them to seek relief, or who defy court orders, will not be granted the court's assistance as this would compromise the court's integrity and lead to chaos in legal proceedings.

The court noted the extensive litigation history between the parties with numerous pending matters (HC 5760, HC 5763, HC 6128, HC 6188, HC 6305/21, HC 6967/21, HC 256/22, HC 537/22, HC 111/22 and HC 3207/22). The court observed that the applicants' answering affidavit was "very tense and unhelpful" in responding to the detailed allegations of non-compliance. The court also noted Mr. Madhuku's submission about an alleged understanding between parties that the main issue would be argued under consolidated cases, but did not place much emphasis on this argument given the clear evidence of non-compliance with court orders.

This case reinforces the fundamental principle in Zimbabwean law that litigants must approach courts with clean hands and comply with existing court orders before seeking further relief. It demonstrates that courts will refuse to exercise jurisdiction where applicants are in contempt of or have defied previous court orders, regardless of the merits of their application. The case emphasizes that the proper procedure is to obey court orders first (even if believed to be invalid) and thereafter seek redress through appeal or review, rather than self-help or defiance. This protects the integrity of the judicial system and prevents chaos in legal proceedings.