Trustees of the Anglican Diocese of Manicaland Church of the Province of Central Africa v Gilbert T. Sambona

The appellant (Trustees of the Anglican Diocese) brought an ex-parte application for an interdict in the Magistrates Court seeking to interdict the respondent (Gilbert T. Sambona) from exercising ecclesiastical functions without a valid licence. The appellant alleged that the respondent Bishop had revoked the respondent's licence to exercise ecclesiastical functions and that the respondent was entering Zimunya Chapelry and other parishes, attending services, performing acts on behalf of the appellant, and interfering with, harassing, and threatening the worship of congregants at All Saints Zimunya Chapelry and other churches. The appellant argued it had a clear right to the immovable property in question and that the respondent had no lawful authority to be at the appellant's property for conducting church services. The respondent contended that the number of congregants had increased and that the appellant's bishop had a personal crusade against him. The respondent also argued that he had appealed against the revocation of his licence under Canon Law, and that the notice of appeal suspended the operation of the revocation.

• Whether the appellant had established a clear right (or prima facie right) for purposes of an interdict
• Whether the appellant had proved that injury had been actually committed or was reasonably apprehended
• Whether the appellant had provided sufficient evidence to support its allegations of interference, harassment and threatening conduct by the respondent
• Whether the court a quo properly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application for interdict
• Whether the decision of the Bishop to revoke the respondent's licence was final in terms of Canon Law or was subject to appeal

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

To succeed in an application for an interdict, whether interlocutory or final, an applicant must provide substantive evidence to establish the requirements of an interdict, including a clear right (or prima facie right) and actual or reasonably apprehended injury. Bare allegations and unsubstantiated averments without supporting evidence (such as supporting affidavits from affected parties) are insufficient to meet the evidentiary threshold for granting an interdict. An appeal court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion by a lower court unless it is shown that the discretion was not judicially exercised.

The court made observations regarding the interplay between Canon Law and civil court jurisdiction. The court a quo had noted that where an internal church appeal was pending regarding the revocation of a licence, the propriety or otherwise of such appeal was not the business of the civil court but reposed with the different tribunal (ecclesiastical tribunal) that would hear the appeal. While this suggests civil courts should be cautious about interfering in matters of church governance where internal remedies exist, the High Court did not definitively rule on this point, as the appeal failed on evidentiary grounds. The court also observed that the court a quo had found the averments to be "the figment of the deponent's imagination" and that "unconfirmed and unsubstantiated fears could not form the basis for an interdict."

This case is significant in Zimbabwean law (noting this is a Zimbabwean High Court case, not South African) as it clarifies the stringent evidentiary requirements for obtaining interdicts, particularly in ecclesiastical disputes. It emphasizes that: (1) bare allegations without supporting evidence are insufficient to establish the requirements for an interdict; (2) applicants must provide tangible evidence (such as supporting affidavits) to substantiate claims of interference, harassment or threatened injury; (3) appeal courts will not lightly interfere with the exercise of discretion by lower courts unless the discretion was not judicially exercised; and (4) in church disputes involving Canon Law, courts will consider whether internal appeal mechanisms are available and whether they affect the finality of ecclesiastical decisions.