Claudius Manamela and Others v Rosewell Zulu and Others

The applicants (Claudius Manamela, Brighton Nanga, and Sibongile Manamela) filed an application seeking declarations that Reverend Zulu was President of the Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa International and that Reverend Clement Nyathi was President of the Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa. The matter had a checkered history involving multiple previous court cases between the same parties. The background revealed that when the church split in 2014, Manamela and his group left the church premises and moved away completely. Subsequently, the applicants filed numerous applications (approximately 16 cases across various courts) seeking to regain access to the church premises they had voluntarily abandoned. On the day of hearing (10 July 2018), the first applicant sought to have the matter removed from the roll, claiming Justice Bere had recused himself and all Bulawayo High Court judges. This claim was disputed by the respondents. The third applicant (Sibongile Manamela, who was the first applicant's wife) did not attend court, and it became clear the first applicant was orchestrating the proceedings.

• Whether the application for removal from the roll should be granted based on alleged recusal of all Bulawayo High Court judges
• Whether the application procedure was appropriate for this contentious matter with disputes of fact
• Whether the application constituted an abuse of court process given the history of multiple similar applications by the same litigants
• Whether the court should impose a vexatious litigant order barring future litigation without leave

The application was dismissed. The applicants were barred from commencing any litigation whatsoever in any court of Zimbabwe concerning the 1st respondent or the respondent church (whether described as Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa or Apostolic Faith International) without leave of a Judge of the High Court of Zimbabwe. The applicants were ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.

A judge's recusal is personal and a judge cannot recuse himself or herself on behalf of other judges. Litigants who persistently file frivolous applications that amount to an abuse of court process may be declared vexatious litigants and barred from commencing further litigation without leave of a judge. Where there are numerous disputes of fact, particularly regarding church governance and control of assets, the application procedure is inappropriate and the matter must proceed by way of a fully-fledged trial. Costs on an attorney-client scale may be awarded as a punitive measure against litigants who abuse court process through repeated frivolous litigation.

The court observed that the applicants appeared to treat litigation as a hobby or pastime, filing applications "like confetti at a wedding" in hope of obtaining contradictory decisions. The court stated it would not condone unfounded and scandalous allegations against judicial officers and legal practitioners made solely to achieve particular objectives. Mabhikwa J commented that courts "are not meant for past-time games but for the genuine resolution of genuine disputes by genuine litigants." The court expressed disdain for the attitude to litigation displayed by the applicants and warned it would not condone such behavior in future. The court observed that the applicants seemed to "sit over coffee laughing and agree to file yet another application" hoping to obtain contradictory decisions.

This case is significant in South African and Zimbabwean jurisprudence for establishing judicial mechanisms to curb vexatious litigation and abuse of court process. The judgment demonstrates the court's willingness to impose stringent measures, including vexatious litigant orders requiring leave of court before commencing further proceedings, against litigants who persistently file frivolous applications. The case also reinforces that where matters involve substantial disputes of fact (particularly regarding church governance and property), the application procedure is inappropriate and a full trial is required. The award of attorney-client costs serves as a punitive measure against abuse of process. The judgment upholds the integrity of the judicial system against attempts to forum shop or seek contradictory decisions through repeated litigation of the same issues.