The Acts of the Resurrection Apostolic Faith in Zimbabwe and The Trustees for the Time Being for the Resurrection of Apostolic Faith Church Trust v Kireba Muparaganda

The first Plaintiff is a church established in 1996, and the second Plaintiff is a Trust formed by the church. The Defendant, Kireba Muparaganda (a centenarian born in 1921), is the founding Archbishop of the church since its formation. In January 2020, the General Body of Elders charged the Defendant with acts of misconduct. The General Body of Elders constituted itself as a Disciplinary Committee and tried the matter in the Defendant's absence after he ignored three invitations to attend the hearing. On 25 March 2020, 8 out of 12 members of the General Body of Elders sat as the Disciplinary Committee, found the Defendant guilty, and dismissed him from the position of Archbishop, reducing him to an ordinary church member. The Defendant ignored this decision. The Plaintiffs then approached the High Court seeking: (1) a declaration that the Defendant is no longer Archbishop; (2) eviction from church premises; (3) an interdict against using church regalia and property; and (4) barring the Defendant from using the church name and structures.

• Whether the General Body of Elders had the constitutional power to sit as a Disciplinary Committee
• Whether the disciplinary hearing and decision to remove the Archbishop was conducted in accordance with the church's constitution
• Interpretation of Articles 2(b), 2(d), and 5(i) of the church constitution regarding the powers of the General Body of Elders versus the Disciplinary Committee and Church Judge
• Whether the Defendant was barred from challenging the disciplinary process for failing to attend the hearing or challenge the outcome timeously
• Whether the principles of natural justice were violated in the disciplinary proceedings

The action by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant was dismissed with costs.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) A General Body of Elders or similar governing body in a church cannot constitute itself as a Disciplinary Committee to hear and determine charges that it has itself initiated, as this violates the separation of powers inherent in the constitutional structure and offends natural justice; (2) The power to "impose disciplinary action" means the power to put in place disciplinary processes, not to sit as the adjudicating body itself; (3) Where a constitution provides for separate bodies - one to give directives and another (the Disciplinary Committee) to receive and act on those directives - these bodies must remain distinct and cannot merge functions; (4) A body cannot give directives to itself; (5) A litigant challenging ultra vires actions under a domestic constitution is not barred from raising such challenges simply because they did not participate in the flawed process or did not immediately challenge the outcome; and (6) Where a disciplinary body acts as complainant, investigator, prosecutor, and judge in its own cause, the proceedings are a nullity and violate principles of natural justice, which cannot be cured even by the presence of a properly constituted judicial officer who does not chair the proceedings.

The court made several obiter observations: (1) The court agreed with defense counsel that the church constitution "seems to have been badly crafted such that it is open to wide interpretation as it is ambiguous"; (2) The court noted that the Defendant, despite being a centenarian born in 1921 who never attended school, demonstrated remarkable "clarity of mind, presence of mind and comprehension of questions and issues [that] defy his age"; (3) The court observed that "the resultant absurdity cannot be acceptable in a democratic society" when referring to the situation where the General Body of Elders would act as complainant, police, prosecutor and judge; and (4) The court commented that even in a badly crafted constitution, the interpretation that would lead to a body sitting in judgment of its own cause "could not have been the intention of its drafters."

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence for establishing important principles regarding: (1) the interpretation of domestic constitutional documents of voluntary associations such as churches; (2) the application of natural justice principles to internal disciplinary proceedings of religious organizations; (3) the need for separation of functions in disciplinary processes to avoid conflicts of interest; (4) the courts' willingness to intervene in church disputes where constitutional irregularities and violations of natural justice occur; and (5) the principle that members can challenge ultra vires actions of church bodies at any time, and are not bound by time limitations that might apply to judicial or quasi-judicial tribunals. The case demonstrates the court's commitment to ensuring that even internal church governance structures comply with basic principles of fairness and constitutional adherence.