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

The applicant and first respondent were previously one unified church that worshipped together until 28 May 2021 when the Supreme Court decision SC67/21 caused them to separate. After the split, the first respondent broke away to form a separate church. The sixth, seventh and eighth respondents, falling under the administration of the first respondent, notified the applicant that they would use property located at Subdivision E of Stand 164 of Prospect (commonly referred to as 164D, Northway, Prospect, Waterfalls, Harare) from 14 April 2022 onwards. The property is registered in the applicant's name under Title Deed 8984/87. The applicant filed this urgent chamber application for a final interdict to prohibit the respondents from entering, using or occupying the property. This was the third application filed by the applicant within a short period, with two previous applications (HC 2405/22 and HC 2409/22) having been struck off the roll by Zhou J.

• Whether a final interdict can be competently moved through an urgent chamber application under the new High Court Rules, 2021
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for a final interdict: (i) a clear right, (ii) irreparable injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and (iii) absence of similar protection by any other remedy
• Whether members of a church who break away from the mother body retain rights to use property registered in the name of the original church
• Whether the application constituted an abuse of court process given previous applications that were struck off the roll

The application for a final interdict was granted as prayed. The respondents and all those acting through them were prohibited from entering, using or occupying Subdivision E of Stand 164 of Prospect measuring 19771 hectares (commonly referred to as 164D, Northway, Prospect, Waterfalls, Harare) held under Title Deed 8984/87.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Under the new High Court Rules, 2021, a final interdict can be competently sought through an urgent chamber application where the applicant proves entitlement on a balance of probabilities; (2) When members break away from a church or organization to form a separate entity, they do not acquire rights to property registered in the name of the original organization; (3) The registered owner of property has a clear right to possession and exclusion of others unless the possessor has some enforceable right against the owner; (4) A breakaway faction from a church universitas does not carry with them the property of the mother body, analogous to a club member who breaks away not taking club property; (5) For a final interdict, an applicant must establish: (i) a clear right on a balance of probabilities, (ii) irreparable injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended, and (iii) absence of similar protection by any other remedy.

The court made observations about the deterioration of relations between the two church factions, noting they were now "at each other's throat in a very shameful manner which defies description" and spending more time in court than praying together. The court commented that "no one should be allowed to take the law into his own hands" and that "self-help remains an unwelcome law of the forests in terms of which civilized man cannot partake of." The court also observed that the principle requiring breakaway members to forfeit property rights was "an unpalatable pill to swallow" but nonetheless represented the correct law. The court noted sympathetically that previous applications being struck off were due to "tardiness" but were "genuine effort[s]" to vindicate rights, distinguishing this from abuse of process.

This case establishes important principles regarding church property disputes following schisms in Zimbabwe. It confirms that under the new High Court Rules, 2021, final relief can be sought through urgent chamber applications where the applicant can prove entitlement on a balance of probabilities. The case reinforces the principle that when members break away from a church to form a new entity, they do not acquire rights to property registered in the name of the original church, even if they contributed to building infrastructure on that property. The judgment protects property rights of religious organizations and clarifies that breakaway factions cannot claim continuing rights to use property of the mother body based on prior unified worship or contributions made while part of the original organization.