Diocese of Harare v Church of the Province of Central Africa and Retired Bishop Sebastian Bakare

The parties are members of the Anglican Church which had split into two formations. Following the split, a dispute arose as to which formation was legitimate, with access to and use of church premises and property being hotly contested. The dispute gave rise to multiple litigation. On 3 December 2007, the Diocese of Harare made an urgent chamber application seeking a provisional order against the respondents to interdict them from conducting church services on properties controlled by the applicant. HUNGWE J reserved judgment and handed it down almost two months later on 31 January 2008, finding that the applicant was non-existent and had no locus standi to bring the matter to court. In the interim, on 19 January 2008, MAKARAU JP had delivered a judgment regulating the interim use of church premises by both formations pending determination of the main case HC 6464/07. KARWI J clarified MAKARAU JP's judgment on 31 January 2008. The applicant appealed against HUNGWE J's judgment and sought to have the appeal set down on an urgent basis.

• Whether the appeal against the judgment of HUNGWE J should be set down on an urgent basis
• Whether it was competent to seek interim relief interdicting the respondents from conducting church services and holding himself out as a Bishop in the chamber application
• Whether HUNGWE J misdirected himself by determining issues that should have been determined in the main case HC 6464/07 after a full trial

The Deputy Registrar was directed to set down the matter on the next set down date available in the Court (mid-March). Costs were ordered to be costs in the cause.

Where an interim order is already in place regulating the relationship between parties pending determination of the main dispute, an appeal against a different interlocutory judgment does not warrant urgent set down merely because the parties are in dispute. However, where an appeal may impact the determination of the main case, it should be set down with sufficient expedition to avoid delaying the finalisation of the main case. The determination of whether an appeal should be set down urgently must be assessed based on the practical impact of delay, not merely the existence of a dispute between the parties.

CHIDYAUSIKU CJ made critical observations about judicial case management, stating that it was 'unacceptable' that HUNGWE J took almost two months to hand down judgment in an urgent application, when other judges (MAKARAU JP and KARWI J) handed down judgments within two days of hearing similar urgent matters. The Chief Justice stated 'This is how it should be.' The Chief Justice also observed that 'rationality seems to have abandoned all the parties and nobody is prepared to make even the most obvious of concessions' and that the parties could not even agree on whether the appeal should be set down as soon as possible. The Chief Justice suggested that consolidation of appeals should be considered if an appeal against MAKARAU JP's judgment was noted, to avoid multiple appeals.

This case illustrates the court's approach to applications for urgent set down of appeals in the context of complex ecclesiastical disputes involving multiple concurrent proceedings. It demonstrates the principle that urgency for appeal set down must be assessed in light of existing interim orders regulating the parties' conduct, and that the mere existence of a dispute does not automatically warrant urgent treatment where adequate interim arrangements are in place. The case also highlights judicial case management principles in multi-party religious disputes.