Supreme Court Upholds Twelve Apostolic Church Leadership

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed the leadership legitimacy of one faction of the Twelve Apostolic Church of Christ, overturning attempts to withdraw two previous court judgments that had barred rival leaders from claiming authority over the church.

In a unanimous ruling, the court dismissed an appeal by Headman Kikins, Bhekinkosi Mhaso and Augustine Robson Mafu, finding that they could not use fresh proceedings to challenge issues that had already been decided by the High Court.

Justice Nicholas Mathonsi, who delivered the judgment alongside Justices Susan Mavangira and Hlekani Mwayera, emphasised that court orders remain enforceable until they are legally overturned.

“ It is trite that an extant court order remains binding unless it is lawfully set aside, varied or altered by a court of competent jurisdiction,” Justice Mathonsi said.

The court also ruled in favour of the church on a cross-appeal, cancelling notices filed by its former lawyer, Bruce Masamvu, which purported to abandon two earlier judgments obtained against the rival faction.

The dispute arose in 2015 following internal divisions that led to two groups operating under the same church name, logo and constitution.

In January 2017, the High Court issued an interdict prohibiting Kikins, Mhaso and Mafu from presenting themselves as church leaders or using its name, colours, logo and property.

A further court order was granted in 2020, resulting in the rival faction’s removal from at least four church premises in Bulawayo. The order remained in effect and had not been overturned on appeal.

The controversy resurfaced in July 2019 when Masamvu filed notices seeking to abandon the earlier judgments. His actions sparked a legal dispute over whether he had been properly authorised to act on behalf of the church.

The church maintained that Masamvu had acted on instructions from the late Bishop Aleck Dube, who had initially been linked to the faction that secured the judgments before later aligning himself with the opposing group.

However, the Supreme Court found that Masamvu had obtained the judgments in his capacity as the church’s legal representative, rather than as an individual acting for Dube.

“He had been acting on behalf of the church when he obtained the judgments and not on behalf of Bishop Aleck Dube as an individual,” Mathonsi said.

The judges said Masamvu should have withdrawn from the case after the church leadership moved to end his mandate and retrieve its legal file.

The court concluded that the notices seeking to abandon the judgments had been submitted without the church’s knowledge or consent and were therefore invalid.

The Supreme Court also dismissed the rival faction’s challenge to By-Law 1/18, adopted in November 2018. The group argued that the measure was unconstitutional because the Deaconal Council had allegedly taken over responsibilities belonging to the Board of Trustees.

The court, however, found that the church’s constitution authorised the Deaconal Council to develop by-laws, provided other relevant church structures were consulted and the proposals were considered at the subsequent Annual General Meeting.

It further ruled that the rival faction could not reopen matters already settled by previous court decisions, invoking the legal principle of res judicata, which prevents parties from relitigating disputes that have been conclusively determined by a competent court.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, while the church’s cross-appeal was upheld, also with costs.

As a result, both notices of abandonment were set aside, the first plaintiff was declared the legitimate Twelve Apostolic Church of Christ, and the rival faction’s claim was dismissed.

The judgment reinforces the authority of existing court orders and highlights the need for church leaders and members to respect their organisation’s constitution and established legal processes.