Mpulu and Another v Faneni and Others (2218/11) [2012] ZAECGHC 19 (25 April 2012)

Mpulu and Another v Faneni and Others (2218/11) [2012] ZAECGHC 19 (25 April 2012)

The court found that the applicants had locus standi to bring the application, as previously decided in related litigation, and that the respondents' arguments to the contrary were attempts to perpetuate a struggle for control of the church in defiance of binding judgments. The urgency of the application was justified due to the ongoing meeting, and the court had properly dispensed with notice and service. The respondents' meeting was covered by the previous interdict and was unlawful. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied: the applicants had a clear right, there was a threat of harm through confusion and wrongful collection of monies, and no adequate alternative remedy...

Citation
[2012] ZAECGHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Amos Mongezi Mpulu; Applicant: Presbyterian Church of Africa; Respondent: Welcome Mzukisi Faneni; Respondent: Eric Matomela; Respondent: Zwelendinga Mabece; Respondent: George Mokabo; Respondent: Elliot Mdinyane; Respondent: L.S Luvalo; Respondent: Xolani Mbusi; Respondent: Kongforce Blackie; Respondent: E. Sontashe; Respondent: Temebelani Sivela; Respondent: M. Msizi; Respondent: Tamsanqa Mkaza; Respondent: Sonwabo Mdlungu; Respondent: Charles Vakala; Respondent: Godfrey Kefile; Respondent: R. Mamashe
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2012
Case Number
2218/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Confirmation of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Interim interdict confirmed against the 2nd, 8th, 10th, and 14th respondents; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.
Judges
J M Roberson
Legal Topics
Interdict, Locus Standi, Urgent Application, Rule Nisi, Costs on Attorney and Client Scale
Civil Procedure Interdict Locus Standi Urgent Application Rule Nisi Costs on Attorney and Client Scale

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amos Mongezi Mpulu

Applicant

Presbyterian Church of Africa

Applicant

Welcome Mzukisi Faneni

Respondent

Eric Matomela

Respondent

Zwelendinga Mabece

Respondent

George Mokabo

Respondent

Elliot Mdinyane

Respondent

L.S Luvalo

Respondent

Xolani Mbusi

Respondent

Kongforce Blackie

Respondent

E. Sontashe

Respondent

Temebelani Sivela

Respondent

M. Msizi

Respondent

Tamsanqa Mkaza

Respondent

Sonwabo Mdlungu

Respondent

Charles Vakala

Respondent

Godfrey Kefile

Respondent

R. Mamashe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Confirmation of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have locus standi to seek an interdict against the respondents for holding meetings under the name of the Presbyterian Church of Africa.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for a final interdict have been met.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' meeting was unlawful and in breach of previous court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had locus standi to bring the application, as previously decided in related litigation, and that the respondents' arguments to the contrary were attempts to perpetuate a struggle for control of the church in defiance of binding judgments. The urgency of the application was justified due to the ongoing meeting, and the court had properly dispensed with notice and service. The respondents' meeting was covered by the previous interdict and was unlawful. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied: the applicants had a clear right, there was a threat of harm through confusion and wrongful collection of monies, and no adequate alternative remedy...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict confirmed against the 2nd, 8th, 10th, and 14th respondents; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 of the order granted on 5 July 2011 are confirmed in respect of the 2nd, 8th, 10th, and 14th respondents.
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.