Anglican Church of the Province of Zimbabwe v Anglican Church of the Province of Central Africa and The Deputy Sheriff

In July 2009, Hlatshwayo J declared Bishop Dr Nolbert Kunonga and six others to be the Diocesan Trustees of the Diocese of Harare under the Church of the Province of Central Africa (the mother church) and ordered property to vest in them. The mother church appealed successfully to the Supreme Court in SC 48/2012, which set aside Hlatshwayo J's decisions. Armed with this judgment, the mother church issued warrants of ejectment and notices of removal on 23 November 2012 relating to properties at 101 Central Avenue, Paget House, and Cathedral Offices, with execution set for 28 November 2012. On 27 November 2012, the Anglican Church of the Province of Zimbabwe (applicant church), which had been formed in 2007 following a split from the mother church over issues including homosexuality, sanctions, land reform and indigenisation policies, filed an urgent application for stay of execution. Dr Kunonga headed the applicant church. The applicant church argued it had been in possession of the properties since 2007 and had not been a party to any of the previous court proceedings. Despite the court setting the matter down for hearing on 4 December 2012, evictions proceeded from 28 November 2012.

• Whether the applicant church was bound by previous court decisions (specifically SC 48/2012) in proceedings to which it was not a party
• Whether the applicant church had a right to be heard (audi alterem partem) before being evicted
• Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application given the Supreme Court's previous determination
• Whether the matter was res judicata
• Whether the application was defective for non-compliance with Rule 241 of the Rules of Court
• Whether the applicant church had standing as a legal persona capable of suing
• Whether the application was urgent or the urgency was self-created
• Whether the applicant church had established a clear right warranting a provisional interdict

The urgent application was dismissed with costs. The court declared it had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

Where the Supreme Court has definitively ruled on a matter, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain applications that require interpretation of the scope and extent of the Supreme Court's judgment. Such interpretation must be sought from the Supreme Court itself. The matter is res judicata once the Supreme Court has spoken. A party seeking clarification or directions regarding a Supreme Court judgment must approach the Supreme Court rather than the High Court.

The court noted that it is the practice, custom and tradition of the court that when an urgent matter has been set down for hearing, it suspends execution until the matter is heard. The court expressed concern about the conduct of the Deputy Sheriff and the mother church in proceeding with evictions despite being served with notice of the set-down hearing. The court also noted the irony that while the mother church wished to be heard in the ex parte urgent chamber application, they were simultaneously denying the applicant church the same right by executing evictions ahead of the hearing, thereby defeating its purpose.

This judgment addresses important principles of res judicata, court hierarchy, and the limits of High Court jurisdiction when a matter has been determined by the Supreme Court. It demonstrates the application of the principle that lower courts cannot interpret or expand upon Supreme Court judgments, and that parties seeking clarification of Supreme Court orders must approach that court directly. The case also touches on issues of standing and the audi alterem partem principle in the context of entities claiming they were not parties to earlier proceedings. The judgment is significant in church property disputes and illustrates the finality of appellate court decisions in the Zimbabwean court system.