Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe v Apostolic Faith Mission of Zimbabwe and Willard Kurida

The Applicant is a Pentecostal church established in Zimbabwe in 1916, operating as a common law universitas with a written constitution. Between 2017-2019, the Applicant was involved in a leadership wrangle between Cossam Chiangwa and Amon Dubie Madawo, which was resolved by the Supreme Court in SC 67/21 in favor of Madawo. After this judgment, disgruntled members led by Chiangwa left and formed a rival church (the first Respondent). The second Respondent, Willard Kurida, was a pastor employed by the Applicant until his dismissal in 2018. He joined or formed the first Respondent church with other disgruntled pastors. The second Respondent continued to unlawfully conduct pastoral duties on the Applicant's premises in the name of the rival church (first Respondent), despite having no right to be there. The Applicant sought a permanent interdict to prevent the Respondents and their followers from using, accessing or conducting services at the Applicant's premises.

• Whether the Applicant proved all the requirements for an interdict
• Whether the founding affidavit was deposed to by a properly authorized deponent (point in limine)
• Whether the resolution authorizing the deponent was sufficiently specific or was impermissibly general

The point in limine raised by the second Respondent was dismissed. The second Respondent was ordered to pay costs of suit.

A valid resolution authorizing a deponent to institute legal proceedings on behalf of a church or common law universitas must: (1) emanate from the institution; (2) be signed; (3) identify the deponent to be clothed with authority; and (4) show the cause of action. The resolution need not specifically name the respondents by name, nor must it be overly detailed - it is sufficient if it speaks to the general subject matter of the dispute (such as illegal occupants of the institution's property). A resolution that identifies unlawful occupation by identified personnel and indicates the nature of the dispute is sufficiently specific and not impermissibly general.

The court noted that it has become fashionable for respondents to raise points in limine that do not appear in their papers. This observation suggests judicial concern about procedural tactics that may not be properly pleaded. The court also observed that the substantive issue (whether the Applicant proved all requirements of an interdict) remained to be determined, indicating this judgment dealt only with the preliminary procedural point and not the merits of the interdict application.

This case provides guidance on the requirements for authorizing resolutions in church litigation matters in Zimbabwe. It clarifies that resolutions need not be excessively specific by naming individual respondents, but must emanate from the institution, be signed, identify the deponent, and indicate the general cause of action (such as unlawful occupation). The case also forms part of the jurisprudence dealing with church property disputes arising from leadership wrangles and breakaway factions, particularly following the Supreme Court decision in SC 67/21 concerning the Apostolic Faith Mission.