Reverend Tony Tshuma and Another v Clement Nyathi and Others

This matter arose from an ongoing dispute involving the Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa Church. The court had previously granted an order on 10 October 2016 removing a related matter from the roll to enable parties to consolidate all matters involving the church dispute (approximately 40 such matters). Despite this extant court order, the parties brought this matter to court without first attempting to consolidate it with the other church-related matters. The same legal practitioners who appeared when the original consolidation order was made were involved in bringing this matter before the court, apparently without disclosing the existence of the prior order to the trial judge.

• Whether the matter should be removed from the roll in light of the previous court order directing consolidation of all matters involving the Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa Church
• Whether legal practitioners acted improperly by bringing the matter to court without disclosing the extant consolidation order
• Whether the parties complied with their duty of candor to the court

The matter was removed from the roll pending its consolidation with other matters involving the Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa Church.

Where a court has made an order directing parties to consolidate related matters before proceeding, parties and their legal practitioners must comply with that order and cannot bring related matters to court in defiance of the extant order. Legal practitioners have a duty to be candid with the court and must disclose the existence of relevant extant court orders. Failure to do so constitutes improper conduct. An extant court order remains binding unless successfully appealed or set aside.

The court observed that it was "obviously unlikely" that the legal practitioners brought the extant consolidation order to the attention of the trial judge who heard the matter. The court noted that there were approximately 40 matters involving the Apostolic Faith Mission of Africa Church that needed to be consolidated, and that this consolidation should be done "in the best possible manner" by the parties. The court's comments about the impropriety of the legal practitioners' conduct, while critical to the decision, also served as a warning about professional standards expected of practitioners appearing before the court.

This case emphasizes the importance of compliance with court orders and the duty of candor owed by legal practitioners to the court. It demonstrates the court's willingness to enforce procedural orders designed to manage complex litigation efficiently, particularly in cases involving multiple related disputes. The case also highlights the consequences of failing to disclose material information (such as extant court orders) to the court, which the court characterized as a failure to be candid. It serves as a reminder that consolidation orders must be complied with before parties can bring related matters to court.