The leadership crisis in the Apostolic Faith Mission in Zimbabwe (AFM) has taken a new twist after its former president, Enos Manyika has approached the courts claiming ownership of the church.
His move comes after the Supreme Court had ruled that Reverend Amon Madawo was the legitimate leader of the church prompting rival group led by Reverend Cossam Chiangwa to form a separate church – Apostolic Faith Mission of Zimbabwe.
- Apostolic Faith Mission (AFM) Officially Split
- AFM Saga: Chiangwa Ordered To Return All Church Properties
- High Court Rules In Favour Of Madziyire, Madawo Side In AFM Church Dispute
- Chiyangwa Led AFM Faction Reject High Court Ruling, Approach Supreme Court
- AFM Saga: Rev Madawo Speaks Following Court Victory
Manyika seeks a court order to bar Madawo and his followers from using the AFM name without his consent. Pindula News present below Manyika’s application.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ZIMBABWE CASE NO. HC 453/20 APPLICANT HELD AT BULAWAYO In the matter between:
APOSTOLIC FAITH MISSION IN ZIMBABWE (Registration CF 221/01) APPLICANT AND
AMON DUBIE MADAWO 1ST RESPONDENT
CLEVER MUPAKAIDZA 2ND RESPONDENT
BRIAN TEMBO 3RD RESPONDENT
CHRISTOPHER CHEMHURU 4TH RESPONDENT
APOSTOLIC FAITH MISSION IN ZIMBABWE 5TH RESPONDENT
THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, N.0 6TH RESPONDENT
URGENT CHAMBER APPLICATION
TAKE NOTICE an Urgent Chamber application is hereby made for an order in terms of the draft order annexed to this application on the grounds that the application is urgent as contemplated in Order 32 rules 226 (2) (a) and 242 of the Rules of the High Court.
FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT OF ENOS MANYIKA
I, the undersigned ENOS MANYIKA, do hereby make oath and state that all the facts stated hereunder are to the best of my knowledge, true and correct, and that;- 1. I am the founder and representative of the Applicant, and I am also the founding president who caused the registration of the Applicant in the year 2001, underregistration number CF 221/01. I am duly authorised to depose to this affidavit in that capacity. I attach hereto a copy of the constitution as Annexure A.
2. The address for service of Applicant is care of our undersigned legal practitioners of record.
3. The 1st Respondent is AMON DUBIE MADAWO, a male adult of full capacity to sue and be sued in his own name. His address for service is Suite 4, Cheznous Building, 4th Avenue/J. Moyo Street, Bulawayo.
4. The 2nd Respondent is CLEVER MUPAKAIDZWA, a male adult of full capacity to sue and be sued in his own name. His address for service is Suite 4, Cheznous Building, 4th Avenue/J. Moyo Street, Bulawayo
5. The 3rd Respondent is BRIGHTON TEMBO, a male adult of full capacity to sue and be sued in his own name. His address for service is Suite 4, Cheznous Building, 4th Avenue/J. Moyo Street, Bulawayo.
6. The 4th Respondent is CHRISTOPHER CHEMHURU a male adult of full capacity to sue and be sued in his own name. His address for service is Suite 4, Cheznous Building, 4th Avenue/J. Moyo Street, Bulawayo.
7. The 5th Respondent is APOSTOLIC FAITH MISSION IN ZIMBABWE whose further and better particulars are unknown to Applicant, whose address for service is Suite 4, Cheznous Building, 4th Avenue/J.Moyo Street, Bulawayo.
26. Firstly, a name is an identity. It is that which identifies an individual and or an entity. There are values and norms that attach to a name. For example, the Applicant associates with what is called a confession of faith. The confession of faith is the same and is embodied in every apostolic faith mission worldwide. The 5th Respondent does not subscribe to that confession of faith. It is submitted that difference on the subject of confession of faith tarnishes the image of the Applicant herein as the world at large will think that the Applicant is party to worldwide. Put forcefully, even the mother body of the Apostolic faith missions, the Apostolic Faith Mission International has told the 5th Respondent as much (See Annexure F). The letter from Apostolic Faith Mission International goes further to state that “The AFM international office bearers have also noted that you have adopted a new constitution with a Confession of Faith which is different from that of AFM International. Your action is tantamount to legally defining yourself outside the AFM International parameters.” It is for this reason that the Applicant must be granted the interdict that it seeks especially in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling that has been wrongly interpreted nationwide to suggest that the 1st – 5th Respondents were legitimate office bearers of the Applicant yet they do not subscribe to the Applicant and even have their own confession of faith different from the Applicant and all Apostolic Missions worldwide. The name of the Applicant is its identity and is unique. Once trashed, Applicant may not be able to repair the damage that would have been done to its name.
27. Secondly, the purpose of a church is to preach the gospel of God. To that end, congregants subscribe to a church doctrine. The current state of confusion does not augur well with the ecclesiastical functions of the church and the church may lose its purpose in these skirmishes. Applicant may be small in size as compared to the 5th Respondent but stature does not entitle one to use the name of another. Applicant has a right to the protection of its registered name.
28. There is no other remedy that can afford the Applicant relief instanter in the premises. Applicant has already filed a court application and awaits a court date. Whilst applicant has been complying and following due process of the law, Respondents have continued to damage the name and image of the Applicant. Urgent relief is more important now considering that by using the Applicant’s name, some people may be misled to believe they are dealing with the Applicant yet they are not. Debts and obligations may be created as against the applicant further exposing the applicant to litigation and law suits.
29. In the premises, I pray for an order temporary directing that the Respondents be directed to cease using Applicant’s name, without the express written consent of the Applicant.
In the premises, I submit that I have made a good case for the relief sought and I pray for an order in terms of the draft annexed hereto.
More: Pindula News