Luxon Tachiona v Bulawayo Seventh Day Adventist City Centre Church and South Zimbabwe Conference of the Seventh Day Adventist Church

The applicant was a member of the first respondent church. Following the sexual harassment of his wife by an ordained pastor, the applicant campaigned against the pastor and church. The pastor was criminally convicted of indecent assault and disciplined by the church. The applicant was subsequently charged with three counts of misconduct: disorderly conduct (attempting to manhandle the pastor), disrupting a church programme, and distributing material without approval, plus failing to cooperate with the Deacons' investigation. The charges were never put to him in writing. The Deacons Council investigated and recommended a 7-month censure without hearing the applicant. The Church Board endorsed this on 9 January 2017. On 11 February 2017, the applicant was informed of the decision and invited to a business meeting on 25 February 2017. At that meeting, his witness was denied entry, he was not allowed to present his case directly to the meeting, and the censure was imposed. The applicant filed a review application (HC 601/17) and this urgent application for a stay of execution pending the review.

• Whether the court should defer to internal church disciplinary procedures or exercise judicial review
• Whether the church's disciplinary process violated the applicant's right to administrative justice under section 68 of the Constitution
• Whether the applicant's right to a fair hearing under section 69 of the Constitution was breached
• Whether the applicant was required to exhaust internal church remedies before approaching the court
• Whether the requirements for a temporary interdict were satisfied

The provisional order was granted as amended in the draft order, staying the execution of the first respondent's decision of 25 February 2017 that censured the applicant for 7 months, until the finalization of the review application in HC 601/17. The first respondent was ordered to convene a business meeting within 7 days and announce to the entire church that the censure decision was stayed by court order. The respondents were ordered to pay costs of suit jointly and severally.

1. Courts adopt a "deference approach" to church disputes, recognizing decisions of the highest church bodies on matters of discipline, faith or ecclesiastical rule, but will exercise judicial review where fraud, collusion or arbitrariness is alleged. 2. Church bodies exercising disciplinary functions are administrative authorities subject to the Administrative Justice Act and constitutional provisions on administrative justice (section 68) and fair hearing (section 69). 3. Administrative justice requires that decisions be lawful, rational, consistent, fair and made in good faith, with procedural fairness including the audi alteram partem rule. 4. Members facing church discipline have fundamental rights to written notice of charges, adequate time to prepare, and the opportunity to be heard, introduce evidence and call witnesses before a decision is taken against them. 5. Where a church acts arbitrarily in violation of its own rules and principles of administrative justice, the affected person has an absolute right to approach the court for redress without first exhausting internal remedies. 6. Decisions taken without charging a member, without giving the member an opportunity to be heard, or through procedures that deprive the member of presenting their case directly to the decision-making body, constitute arbitrariness and violate administrative justice.

Mathonsi J expressed disappointment with both parties for allowing emotions to overtake them and failing to resolve the matter with the dignity that Christian faith espouses. He noted that the applicant may have resorted to "megaphone tactics" motivated by revenge, but the church's "scutter-gun approach" trampling on the member's rights made a bad situation worse. The judge criticized the church's procedure of taking a member to the vestry to present his case to those who had already recommended punishment, who would then relay his submissions to the decision-making body, describing this as "clinging onto relics, something that has long gone past its sale-by-date." He characterized the entire process as displaying "callous disregard" for the prejudice suffered by the church member, suggesting it amounted to "obfuscation by those who flaunt power in what appears to be a cat and mouse game." The judge suggested that a person aggrieved by the powerful in the church would be justified in thinking the process was rigged against them. He noted the church had been "investigating" since June and November 2016 without calamity befalling it, suggesting delay would not harm the church.

This case is significant for establishing the limits of judicial deference to ecclesiastical bodies in Zimbabwe. It affirms that while courts generally defer to church decisions on matters of discipline, faith and ecclesiastical rule, they will intervene where there is arbitrariness, fraud or collusion. The judgment elevates administrative justice to a constitutional imperative in church disciplinary proceedings, requiring compliance with sections 68 and 69 of the Constitution. It confirms that church bodies exercising disciplinary functions are administrative authorities subject to the Administrative Justice Act and constitutional protections. The case clarifies that internal church remedies need not be exhausted where fundamental procedural fairness has been violated. It provides a framework for assessing administrative justice: lawfulness, rationality, consistency, fairness and good faith. The judgment is important for protecting individual rights within voluntary associations and religious organizations, ensuring that such bodies cannot act arbitrarily even in internal matters.