Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe v Apostolic Faith Mission of Zimbabwe and Others

The applicant sought an urgent interdict prohibiting the respondents from holding a conference at a conference centre at 164D Northway Prospect, Waterfalls, Harare (held under Deed of Transfer Number 8984/87). On 25 February 2022, the fifth respondent wrote to the applicant notifying it of the dates and venue of the conference, stating that the Praise and Worship team would commence practice on 5 March 2022. On 1 March 2022, the applicant responded categorically stating it would not allow respondents to hold their conference at any of its properties. On 9 March 2022, the fourth respondent wrote a letter (allegedly fraudulently on applicant's letterhead) notifying police of the impending conference. On 7 April 2022, the applicant's legal practitioners wrote to the police. The applicant only approached the court on an urgent basis after being advised by police that they would not act to stop the conference without a court order. The respondents raised objections in limine regarding: (a) fraudulent founding affidavit; (b) lack of pagination and indexing; and (c) lack of urgency.

• Whether the founding affidavit was fraudulent and should be rejected
• Whether failure to properly paginate and index papers invalidated the application
• Whether the matter qualified as urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis
• What constitutes urgency in urgent chamber applications
• Whether the applicant's delay in approaching the court constituted self-created urgency

The application was struck off the roll of urgent matters with costs awarded to the respondents.

The binding legal principles are: (1) Urgency is determined not merely by the imminent arrival of the date of reckoning, but by whether the applicant treated the matter urgently having regard to when the need to act arose; (2) Self-created urgency arising from deliberate abstention from acting until the eleventh hour does not justify urgent treatment under the rules of court; (3) A party seeking urgent relief must demonstrate both that the matter cannot wait to be dealt with as an ordinary application and that they themselves have acted with appropriate expedition; (4) Fresh allegations raising matters requiring response cannot be introduced in affidavits improperly labeled as 'supporting affidavits' when filed with answering papers rather than founding papers.

The court observed that police have no role in disputes pertaining to proprietary interests unless these have a criminal dimension, and are present to maintain law and order. The court also noted that there was a dispute about the correct description or exact location of the conference centre but stated that 'nothing turns on that at this juncture.' The court mentioned that reference was made to a non-existent 'rule 227' of the High Court Rules, 1921, but found this to be a non-issue given its conclusion on the pagination point.

This case reiterates and applies important principles governing urgent applications in Zimbabwean civil procedure. It emphasizes that urgent treatment is a privilege requiring justification, and that parties must act promptly when the need to approach the court arises. The judgment confirms that self-created urgency or deliberate delay until the 'eleventh hour' will not entitle a litigant to preferential urgent treatment. It also deals with procedural issues regarding the filing of affidavits and the consequences of filing fresh allegations in improperly labeled affidavits attached to answering papers.