Simon Mafunda v The Zimbabwe East Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church of Zimbabwe and Bishop Eben Kanukayi Nhiwatiwa N.O.

The applicant was elected as conference lay leader of the first respondent (Zimbabwe East Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church) in 2008, a position he held until December 2021. The United Methodist Church has been embroiled in internal disputes regarding human sexuality and homosexuality, resulting in two factions: Traditionalists (who oppose homosexuality) and Liberals (who support inclusion of LGBTQ members). The applicant associated with the Traditionalist faction and in November 2021 was employed as coordinator of the Wesleyan Covenant Association (WCA), a traditionalist lobbyist group. At the first respondent's annual meeting held virtually via Zoom on 4-5 December 2021, presided over by the second respondent (Bishop Nhiwatiwa), the second respondent stated the church should remain in the Continuing United Methodist Church and advised that the applicant's employment with WCA amounted to breach of trust. A motion for a vote of no confidence was raised and passed by six out of seven districts. The applicant received no prior notice of disciplinary charges, the vote was not on the agenda, and no hearing was conducted.

• Whether the applicant had exhausted domestic remedies before approaching the court
• Whether the applicant waived his right to challenge the procedural irregularities by participating in the process
• Whether the applicant lacked locus standi by virtue of alleged automatic resignation from joining WCA
• Whether the vote of no confidence was conducted in accordance with the principles of administrative justice under the Administrative Justice Act
• Whether the voting procedure complied with the church's own rules as contained in the Book of Discipline
• Whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness and natural justice

1. The vote of no confidence removing Simon Mafunda as conference lay leader conducted on 4-5 December 2021 was set aside. 2. Simon Mafunda was reinstated as conference lay leader from the date of the order. 3. No order as to costs.

An administrative authority (including a religious organization) that takes administrative action affecting a person's rights must comply with section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act by: (1) acting lawfully, reasonably and fairly; (2) giving adequate notice of the nature and purpose of proposed action; (3) providing reasonable opportunity to make representations; and (4) giving notice of any right of review or appeal. A decision taken without compliance with these requirements is unlawful and liable to be set aside. Where an organization's own rules (in this case the Book of Discipline) provide a specific procedure for removal of members or officers, that procedure must be followed. A vote of no confidence conducted without legal basis in the organization's rules, without prior notice, without the matter being on the agenda, and using an irregular voting procedure constitutes a material procedural irregularity that renders the decision invalid.

The court noted that the broader United Methodist Church had been embroiled in disputes regarding Biblical doctrine on human sexuality since the 1970s, resulting in factionalism. The court observed that if the applicant had truly resigned from the church by joining WCA, there would have been no basis to hold a vote of no confidence against him, raising the question of why he was allowed to attend the conference meeting until the end. The court also noted the testimony of Arthur Chaguma, a 70-year member of the church, confirming that districts do not vote as units and do not represent membership at conference meetings. The court observed that the WCA is a lobbyist group advocating for the traditionalist position, not a separate church organization.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law as it reinforces the binding nature of section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act on all administrative authorities, including religious organizations. It establishes that church bodies exercising administrative functions must comply with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice, including adequate notice, opportunity to be heard, and adherence to their own constitutional rules. The judgment emphasizes that even voluntary associations cannot remove members from office without due process. It also clarifies the test for locus standi in challenges to internal organizational decisions and the circumstances in which waiver of procedural rights will be found.