Peter Ndlovu and Others v Manners Ngwenya and Others

The applicants were members of the Executive Board of the third respondent, the Twelve Apostolic Church of Christ. Due to internal squabbles, no Annual General Meeting (AGM) was held in 2016. The church constitution required an AGM to be held in April of every year. On 27 February 2017, the applicants wrote to the first and second respondents requesting the convening of an executive meeting in terms of Article X of the church constitution, which required that upon request of three board members, an executive meeting should be convened within 14 days. Despite more than 14 days elapsing, no meeting was convened. The applicants launched an urgent application on 28 March 2017 seeking an interim order to compel the holding of a preparatory executive meeting for the upcoming AGM in April. The applicants alleged that the first and second respondents were attempting to frustrate the holding of the AGM to avoid accounting for church funds and property.

• Whether the matter was urgent and justified jumping the queue
• Whether the relief sought was interim or final in nature
• Whether the certificate of urgency adequately established irreparable harm
• Whether the applicants demonstrated they could not obtain substantial redress through normal court procedures

The application was dismissed with costs against the applicants.

For a matter to be heard as an urgent application, the applicant must: (1) explicitly set forth circumstances rendering the matter urgent in both the certificate of urgency and the founding affidavit; (2) state clear reasons why substantial redress cannot be obtained through a hearing in due course; (3) establish the prima facie right that has been or is about to be infringed; (4) demonstrate the irreversibility of the harm in clear and certain terms; and (5) show that if the relief is not granted, specific irreparable harm will be suffered. The absence of substantial redress in normal proceedings is the underlying test for urgency. Additionally, interim relief that is final in nature cannot be granted in urgent applications.

The court noted that the church constitution used the word 'will' rather than 'shall' regarding the timing of the AGM in April, suggesting the provision may not be peremptory. The court also observed that the applicants could have approached the court by normal application seeking an order that respondents adhere to the constitution by calling an AGM, especially since the application was launched on 28 March 2017 when April had not yet passed. The court implied that April being described as an important month for the church and the month of Passover was insufficient without explaining the precise connection between Passover and the AGM, and the harm if the AGM was not held in that specific month.

This case reinforces the strict requirements for urgent applications in Zimbabwean law, emphasizing that applicants must explicitly establish irreparable harm and demonstrate why normal court procedures would not provide substantial redress. It clarifies that urgency cannot be based merely on calendar dates or constitutional deadlines without demonstrating actual irreversible harm. The case also reinforces the principle that interim relief that is final in nature is impermissible, following Kuvarega v Registrar General. The judgment provides guidance on the dual requirement that both the certificate of urgency and the founding affidavit must independently and explicitly establish the grounds for urgency.