Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe v Amon Dubie Madawo and Others

Two factions within the Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe (AFM) had previously engaged in litigation over control and leadership of the church. The Madziyire group and the Chiangwa group brought separate applications (HC 9149/18 and HC 179/19) which were consolidated. The High Court granted relief in favor of the Madziyire group, declaring the meeting of 22 September 2018 (chaired by Enos Manyika, the former president) null and void. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in SC 67/21, which dismissed the Chiangwa group's appeal. Following the Supreme Court judgment, Enos Manyika, claiming to represent the AFM (registered as CF 221/01), brought an urgent application to interdict the respondents (members of the Madziyire group who had won the earlier litigation) from using the name "Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe." Manyika alleged that he was the founder and founding president representing a different entity with the same name but a different constitution. The respondents opposed the application on grounds that it was not urgent, Manyika lacked authority to represent the church, and the relief sought was incompetent.

• Whether the application was properly brought as an urgent matter
• Whether Enos Manyika had authority to depose to the founding affidavit and act on behalf of the Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe
• Whether the court could revisit issues already determined by the Supreme Court
• Whether the alleged use of the Supreme Court judgment by respondents constituted sufficient urgency
• What is the appropriate costs order in circumstances of abuse of court process

1. The point in limine on urgency is upheld. 2. The application is not urgent and is struck off the roll of urgent matters. 3. Costs of the application to be borne by Mr Enos Manyika in his personal capacity on a legal practitioner and client scale.

A matter is urgent only if, at the time the need to act arises, it cannot wait. Urgency that stems from deliberate or careless abstention from action does not constitute the type of urgency contemplated by the rules. Where a Supreme Court has definitively determined issues regarding the legitimate leadership, constitution, and name of an organization, a lower court has no jurisdiction to revisit those issues. A litigant cannot circumvent a binding Supreme Court decision by attempting to re-litigate the same dispute under the guise of representing a different entity. A universitas cannot be represented in legal proceedings by a person who has not been properly authorized to do so by resolution or other proper authority. Where an individual initiates proceedings purporting to represent an organization without authority, and does so in an attempt to challenge binding court decisions, that individual may be held personally liable for costs on a punitive scale.

The court adopted a holistic approach to hearing preliminary points together with the merits to save court time, while reserving the right to dispose of the matter solely on preliminary points. The court noted that once it decided the matter on urgency and lack of authority, it served no useful purpose to determine the remaining point in limine regarding competency of the interim relief. The court observed that an order of costs against the church in this case would be a brutum fulmen (meaningless), as the church cannot pay itself, and Manyika had no authority to instruct payment. The court distinguished this case from ordering a representative of a litigant to pay costs, characterizing it instead as unmasking the person behind the litigation. The court commented on the practice of forum shopping, noting that the respondents had filed a separate application in the Harare High Court while this matter was pending, though ultimately this did not affect the outcome.

This case is significant for establishing several important principles in Zimbabwean law: (1) It reinforces the strict approach courts take to urgency in applications, requiring that matters cannot wait and that urgency is not self-created; (2) It demonstrates that courts will not permit litigants to circumvent binding decisions of higher courts through backdoor attempts to re-litigate settled issues; (3) It affirms that a universitas (corporate entity such as a church) can only be represented in legal proceedings by persons properly authorized to do so; (4) It establishes that courts will pierce the corporate veil and hold individuals personally liable for costs where they initiate litigation without authority and in bad faith; (5) It provides guidance on when punitive costs on a legal practitioner and client scale are appropriate - namely, when conduct amounts to abuse of court process, is dishonest, or demonstrates contempt for court decisions. The case is particularly important in the context of organizational disputes within religious and other voluntary associations.