The Applicant, represented by Evangelist Stephen Sibanda, sought to be joined as an interested party to case number HCH4154/25 in terms of Rule 32. In the main case (HCH4154/25), the first Respondent was suing the second to seventh Respondents seeking a declarator that they had seceded from membership and an eviction order from church properties. The Applicant claimed it had a direct interest as it owned the properties at the centre of the dispute and alleged that the first Respondent was not authorized to institute the main proceedings and was a splinter group that had separated from the Applicant. The first Respondent opposed the joinder application, raising two points in limine: (1) that the Applicant failed to plead its legal status, and (2) that the application was characterized by fraud, alleging that the Applicant was a non-existent, fictitious entity created by the deponent and others to confuse the court. The Applicant responded to the fraud allegations with bare denials rather than specific denials.
The application was dismissed. Mr. Stephen Sibanda, the deponent to the founding affidavit, was ordered to bear costs of suit on an ordinary scale. The court did not order costs against the Applicant entity itself as there was no evidence it existed.
In motion proceedings, where affidavits serve a dual role as both pleadings and evidence, bare denials are insufficient to respond to material allegations, particularly serious allegations of fraud. A party called upon to respond to material averments must specifically deny such allegations and answer the point of substance; failure to do so entitles the court to draw adverse inferences against that party and to accept the allegations as admitted. Rule 36(14) prohibits evasive pleading and requires parties to answer the point of substance when denying allegations of fact. Where fraud allegations are raised, claiming an applicant is a non-existent, fictitious entity, failure to specifically deny such allegations amounts to an admission and establishes the fraud, rendering the application an abuse of court process warranting dismissal.
The court observed that the draft order itself demonstrated the confused nature of the application - seeking joinder without specifying which side to join, attempting to dictate issues for determination in the main case, and seeking to file unidentified pleadings within fifteen days contrary to normal procedural timelines. The court noted that costs could not properly be ordered against an entity whose existence had not been proven, hence the personal costs order against the deponent. The judge also commented that addressing the remaining point in limine would be a futile exercise having already found the application should be dismissed on fraud grounds.
This case reinforces important principles in Zimbabwean civil procedure regarding the sufficiency of pleadings in motion proceedings. It emphasizes that bare denials are insufficient when responding to material allegations, particularly fraud. The judgment clarifies that parties must engage specifically with serious allegations or face adverse inferences. The case also demonstrates judicial intolerance for abuse of court process and attempts to confuse proceedings through improper joinder applications. It provides guidance on the dual role of affidavits in motion proceedings as both pleadings and evidence, requiring clear and specific responses to material averments.