KAMOCHA J: The
applicants sought and were granted a provisional order on 16 February 2011
whose interim relief was to the following effect:
“That pending the determination of
this matter, applicant is granted the following relief.
1.
That
respondent is interdicted from purporting to be the president of the Movement
for Democratic Change.
2.
That
the respondent is interdicted from exercising any function vested in the
president of the Movement for Democratic Change.
3.
That
respondent is interdicted from in any way interfering with structures and
organs of the party.”
In their amended final order they sought the following:
Pending the finalization of case number HC 612.11 in Harare:-
(a)
That
respondent be and is hereby interdicted from purporting to be the president of
the Movement for Democratic Change and from interfering with its structures and
organs as well as from exercising any functions or powers vested in the
president of the Movement for Democratic Change.
(b)
That
respondent be and is hereby interdicted from attending any meeting of whatever
description of Principals in the Inclusive Government of Zimbabwe or of any
regional or international body in the capacity of Principal in the inclusive
Government of Zimbabwe.
(c)
That
respondent be and is hereby interdicted from performing or exercising any
function or power vested in the president of the Movement for Democratic Change
and/or principal in the Inclusive Government; and
(d)
Respondent
is declared not to be the president of the Movement for Democratic Change.
(e)
Respondent
is to pay costs.”
As can be seen from the final order being sought, this is an
application for an interdict and a declaratur that the respondent Professor
Arthur Mutambara is no longer the president of the Movement for Democratic
Change – “the MDC”.
The founding affidavit of the
applicants was deposed to by the second applicant, Priscila
Misihairambwi-Mushonga in her official capacity as the Secretary-General of the
MDC, having been duly elected at the party's third National Congress held at
Harare on 8 and 9 January 2011. She had
been duly authorized to make the affidavit in terms of a resolution passed by
the National Council of the MDC on 10 January 2011.
She stated that the Movement for
Democratic Change was a political party and a body corporate in terms of its
constitution and was first established in September 1999.
The third congress of the party was
held in Harare on 8 January 2011. The
congress was attended by 4 428 delegates representing party structures from all
the 12 provinces of the party in Zimbabwe.
A new leadership for the party was elected. The respondent did not stand for election at
the congress but fully participated in the proceedings.
Since the respondent did not avail
himself for re-election as the party president Mr Welshman Ncube was elected
president of the party with his deputy as Edwin Mushoriwa, Goodrich Chimbaira
and Frank Chamunorwa were elected National Chairman and deputy respectively
while Priscila Misihairambwi-Mushonga and Moses Mzila Ndlovu were elected
Secretary-General and deputy Secretary respectively to name but a few top
officials of the party. A total of 80
office bearers of the party were elected.
On 7 January 2011 the MDC National
Council held a meeting whereat 10 members of the National Council walked
out. The 10 members later that day
around 5pm delivered a petition to the then Secretary-General of the party
objecting to the holding of the congress, which was due to commence the next
day alleging that there were some irregularities. The ten were subsequently joined by three
others and filed an application in the High Court in Harare in case number HC
612/11 wherein they seek an order setting aside the congress and its
resolutions. The MDC has opposed the
application and has filed its opposing papers.
On 23 January 2011 the party's
National Standing Committee, met in Harare and, inter alia, resolved to reshuffle its cabinet members including the
position of Deputy Prime Minister to the position of Minister of Regional
Integration and International Cooperation.
The party's new president, Professor Welshman Ncube, was reassigned from
the position of Minister of Industry and Commerce to the position of Deputy
Prime Minister. The deponent was
reassigned to the position of Minister of Industry and Commerce. The decisions were allegedly taken in terms
of section 20.1 of the Global Political Agreement as read with the Constitution
of Zimbabwe Amendment Act No. 19.
The decisions made by the National
Standing Committee were communicated to Professor Arthur Mutambara – “the
respondent” on the same day. The
respondent allegedly then requested the new president of the MDC to make
representations on his behalf to the party's Standing Committee to allow him to
remain in the position of Deputy Prime Minister until June 2011 to enable him
to complete the programmes such as the branding programme he alleged he was
still working on. His request was
conveyed to the National Standing Committee which did not accede to it.
Welshman Ncube swore to an affidavit
confirming that the respondent had indeed requested him to convey the request
on his behalf.
The deponent averred that on 20
January 2011 the respondent approached her at her house and asked her in her
new capacity as Secretary-General of the party to convene a meeting with the
new president of the party to discuss his (respondent's) role in the Inclusive
Government. He allegedly made a variety
of suggestions which would enable him to remain as Deputy Primary Minister but
which would also enable the new president of the party to play his role as the
principal under the Global Political Agreement.
She agreed to convey the suggestions to the new president of the party,
which she did. She averred that at no
time during those discussions did respondent question or dispute the validity
of the congress or the elections of the party's leadership. She was in fact surprised why he had suddenly
turned round to say he did not recognize the very leadership from which he had
frantically sought to be allowed to remain in his position as Deputy Prime
Minister until June 2011.
More astounding things were still to
come from the respondent. On 7 February
2011 he issued a press statement in which he advised that he was not prepared
to be re-assigned, that he would remain in his position as Deputy Prime
Minister and that in view of the fact that court proceedings had been launched
by others challenging the legality of the congress he would not be prepared to
accept the authority of the new national leadership pending the outcome of the
High Court application to which he was not a party.
On 8 February 2011 the
vice-President of the party acting on instructions from the national Executive
wrote to him, inter alia, giving him
notice of an urgent meeting of the National Council of the party scheduled for
10 February 2011 at the party's national headquarters in Harare. But the respondent, on 9 February 2011 issued
a further press statement in which he purported to dismiss the new party
president, Professor Welshman Ncube when in fact he had no power, to do so, in
terms of the constitution of the party.
The National Council of the party
met at the party's headquarters in Harare as scheduled on 10 February
2011. In attendance at the meeting were
105 members of the new national Council elected at the January congress and
accordingly the required quorum by the party's constitution was met. Chief on the agenda of the meeting was the
discussion of the respondent's conduct.
The vice president of the party presented the letter addressed to the
respondent and his two press statements for discussion. After a debate centered on them a resolution
was unanimously taken to expel the respondent from the MDC party. A letter addressed to the respondent was
written by the deponent on 11 February 2011 advising him of his fate. The latter was delivered to him at his
offices n 14 February 2011 in the morning.
The deponent averred that in her
view it was clear that from the purported action of the respondent in
attempting to dismiss the president of the party and from the wording of his
press statement issued on 9 February 2011 he had unilaterally and unlawfully
assumed the role of the leader of the MDC party. It was reasonable to assume that he had no
intention of changing his stance in that regard and may well attempt to use his
purported position as an alleged leader of one of the parties to the global
political agreement to exercise considerable powers in terms of the
agreement. Furthermore whatever actions
he would purport to take would be clearly against the wishes of the members of
the MDC party as had been expressed at the congress in January 2011. Whatever actions he intended to take would b
without the mandate of the party and could therefore be detrimental to the
interests of the party.
The respondent had categorically
stated that he was only prepared to respect the leadership of the party elected
at the January 2011 congress once the High Court in Harare had made its ruling
in the application referred to supra.
Yet he is not a party to that application and did not apply to the court
seeking a joinder. Neither has he
himself challenged the validity of the congress in any court of law, but merely
wants to associate himself with an application launched in the High Court by
other people. It was concluded that he
was estopped from challenging the validity of the congress and from
disrespecting the leadership voted by the congress.
He attended the congress and fully
participated without demur but still wants to disassociate himself with the
very congress by claiming not to recognize it.
Not only did he fully participate in the congress but he accepted the
outcome of the congress until the party decided to reshuffle him from the
position of Deputy Prime Minister.
It was asserted that the mere filing
of an application did not in itself invalidate the resolution of the congress
and to that extent until this court has issued its order in that matter the
leadership of the party as elected at the congress can be the only possible
leadership of the party. There is merit
in that assertion.
The applicants averred that their
application came at a particularly crucial stage of Zimbabwe's history and in
the life of the transitional inclusive government formed as a result of the
Global Political Agreement. Elected
leaders of the MDC National Executive, including its president Professor
Welshman Ncube, were key players in the process and played roles nominated by
the party as negotiators, Cabinet Ministers and Principals on behalf of the MDC
party. Accordingly, the effective and
accurate communication of the stance and policies of the party with regard to
government policy and the transition itself was dependent on those nominated by
the party respecting the decisions taken by the party. The respondent had not been expelled from the
party. It was accordingly asserted that
very serious and irreparable damage would be done to the interests of the party
and its members if the respondent continued to exercise a mandate he had not
been given.
His actions clearly demonstrated
that he was trying to obtain a position he voluntarily withdrew from in
December 2010. What was pertinent to
observe was that after a decision was taken by the party on 8 December 2010 to
hold its 3rd National Congress in January 2011 he had initially
indicated that he would contest the position of president of the party and the
applicants in case number HC 612/11 were all part of his campaign team. Indeed prior to the meeting of the Harare
Province was called to nominate candidates his name was put forward to the
meeting as a nominee for the position of president of the party and the
applicants in case number HC 612/11 were all parties of his campaign team. Indeed prior to the meeting of the Harare
province was called to nominate candidates his name was put forward to the
meeting as a nominee for the position of president of the party. However, in that nomination meeting he was
badly beaten and was only able to secure 13 votes out of the 52 eligible voters
who attended the meeting. The respondent
subsequently, as realization that he did not have sufficient support to sustain
a nomination, publicly announced that he was no longer going to contest for the
presidency and that he would continue as a simple card-carrying member of the
party. His statement in that regard was
widely carried by the press in Zimbabwe.
For instance the Chronicle Newspaper quoted him saying the following on
20 December 2010 in Victoria Falls when addressing diasporans gathered in the
resort town:-
“I am stepping down as the leader of my party MDC. I am not running – it's done. We are going for a congress in January and I
have said that I am not contesting for any party post but I will still be a
member of the party.”
Despite having said the above the
respondent had turned round and was then telling all those who were prepared to
listen to his story, that he would soon be announcing a cabinet reshuffle of
the MDC Ministers in the Inclusive Government by replacing the existing team
with his nominees. He in fact had, in
that regard, approached several party members of parliament offering them
ministerial appointments. The simple
truth was that he was no longer the party president after the party's 3rd
National Congress of January 8 and 9 of 2011 and no longer had authority to
reshuffle the party's Ministers.
Furthermore, there were at least two
forth coming meetings of the presidents of the three (3) political parties in
the Global Political Agreement commonly referred to as principals to discuss
two important issues referred to them by the cabinet and the National Security
Council respectively being the proposed amendments to the electoral laws and
inter-party political violence in the country.
Respondent was claiming that he would represent the party at those
important meetings, when, in fact, he had no mandate to do so.
There was also, at that time, a
forthcoming meeting of the SADC Organ Troika on Defence and Security at which
the facilitator of the Zimbabwe Dialogue, President J.Z. Zuma would present his
report on the outstanding issues in the implementation of the Global Political
Agreement. Since the respondent was
claiming to be the president of the party and purported to dismiss the
legitimate president of the party, the well founded fear was that he would seek
to represent the party at the meeting when he had no lawful right to do so.
In conclusion the applicants had
this to say:-
“The respondent's preposterous and bizarre actions and antics
are causing irreparable damage to the image of the party and are bringing the
party's name into disrepute. They are
also causing immense confusion within the party and the country.”
Two press statements issued by the
respondent on 7 February 2011 and 9 February 2011 were filed of record as
annexures “E” and “H” respectively.
Annexure “I” is a cutting from the Chronicle Newspaper of 20 December
2010 wherein respondent is reported addressing diasporans in Victoria Falls
informing them that there would be a congress of the MDC but he was going to
stand down as its president and would be not contesting for any party post but
would remain a party cadre.
In his opposing affidavit the respondent sought to dispute
that the gathering of 4 428 delegates of the MDC party on 8 and 9 January 2011
was a congress of the party. He went
along the lines raised by the 13 applicants in case number HC 612/11 and
adopted the averments therein to oppose the confirmation of the provisional
order.
In vehemently denying that the
meeting was a party congress he averred that the MDC party congress was going
to be preceded by the National Council meeting scheduled for 7 January
2011. But, when the meeting commenced,
there arose disputes centered on the constitutionality of the party's congress
scheduled for 8 to 9 January 2011.
Disagreements allegedly arose regarding procedures and other issues
relating to the constitution. A sizeable
number of the National Council members then walked out in protest disabling the
organ from discharging its mandate. In
particular, the chairman of the National Council meeting who was the national
chairman of the party, Mr Joubert Madzimure walked out, together with the
chairperson of the women's wing, chairperson of the youth wing and a number of
portfolio secretaries.
It then became necessary for the
respondent to chair the National Council meeting. The respondent then claimed to have advised
those present to take note of the concerns of those that had walked out and
further alleged that he told the remaining members of the national Council meeting
that the meeting was no longer a National Council meeting. The meeting then allegedly proceeded as an
ordinary meeting. The respondent claimed
to have advised the remaining council member of that fact.
In the result, so the averment
meant, there was no proper or lawful National Council meeting on 7 January
2011, as the meeting did not satisfy the requirements of the party's
constitution. Hence, there was no legal
basis for a National Congress on 8 and 9 January 2011.
Respondent stated that on 8 and 9
January 2011 he had attended a gathering of persons who intended to hold an MDC
congress. He alleged that his objective
was to encourage healing and reconciliation among the party members, and to
plead with colleagues to pay attention to the constitutional requirements for
holding a National Congress. The
chairperson did not attend despite the fact that he was constitutionally
mandated to preside over the congress.
The meeting ended up being presided over by the National Organising
Secretary in violation of the constitutional requirements for a proper and
legal congress. In the light of that, he
allegedly addressed delegates and stated to them that the gathering was not an
MDC congress but an ordinary meeting of the party.
He also allegedly implored delegates
to take into account the fact that a sizeable number of leaders (13) had
boycotted and that the delegates should address the concerns of those that had
walked out of the National Council meeting and had also boycotted the gathering
of 8 and 9 January 2011. His aim was to
make party leaders to return to constitutionalism and not to destroy the party.
To the respondent's disappointment
all his efforts were frustrated. His
advice was ignored and certain individuals put themselves in certain positions
when the congress of the party on 8 and 9 January 2011 was not proper and
lawful. It was, allegedly, not in terms
of the MDC constitution and was, ipso
facto, a nullity and so was what was decided and done thereat since one
cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stand, it will fall. There was no election to stand for. In conclusion on the issue of the party's
congress the respondent reiterated that he had allegedly told the 4 428
delegates that in light of the concerns raised by the 13 council members on 7
January 2011, the meeting of 8 and 9 January 2011 could not be a congress.
In response to the issue of National
Council meeting of 7 January 2011 and the party's congress of 8 and 9 the
applicants had the following to say.
The applicants stated that at that
time the National Council was made up of 105 members 87 of those members
attended the meeting of 7 January 2011. Ten of those members walked out of the
meeting leaving a total of 77 members.
In terms of the party's constitution a quorum for any National Council
meeting is formed by 50% of council members.
After the ten had walked out the remaining 77 members formed the
required quorum.
The applicants said there was no
truth in the suggestion by the respondent that the ten walked out of the
meeting because of disputes centered on the constitutionality of the impending
party congress. The correct position was
that the acting national chairman Mr Joubert Madzimure had allegedly
pre-arranged a press conference for 3 pm on that day. When confronted on the matter he denied any
knowledge of it. But at about 2.45pm
before any item on the agenda was discussed the ten stormed out of the
meeting. The acting national chairman
complained that he had not been accorded the respect that he deserved by the
then Secretary-General and the deponent who had gone out to answer calls on
their mobile phones. The truth of the
matter was that the ten stormed out of the meeting because it was nearly time
for them to go and address a press conference.
Since the acting national chairman
had walked out of the National Council meeting, the respondent volunteered to
chair the meeting and the council accepted his suggestion to chair the
meeting. However, the applicants stated
that his averments that he advised the National Council meeting to take note of
the concerns of those that had walked out and that the meeting was no longer a
National Council meeting were clearly false as he had never said so. They asserted that the meeting proceeded as a
National Council meeting and went on to consider and approve the following:-
(a)
The
proposed amendments to the party's constitution to be presented to the congress
for approval;
(b)
All
the petitions on the nominations of persons for elections at the congress;
(c)
The
respondent himself formally tabled his withdrawal from contesting the position
of president of the party. The National
Council meeting which he chaired accepted his withdrawal.
It was the applicants' assertion that the National Council
meeting had the requisite quorum and satisfied all the provisions of the
party's constitution relating to the holding of National Council meetings
contrary to the bald assertions by the respondent that provisions of the
party's constitution were not satisfied.
He was unable to name the provisions which he claimed to have been
violated. Similarly respondent made a
bald assertion that there was no legal basis for holding a National Congress on
8 and 9 January 2011 without laying a foundation for such an assertion by
naming the provisions of the party's constitution which were contravened.
The applicants concluded that the respondent was just being
untruthful when he was suggesting that the National Council meeting had ceased
being such when the ten members walked out of it.
The applicants were justified in
arriving at that conclusion. This court
finds that the meeting made its deliberations as a National Council
meeting. The respondent lacked candour
and was being untruthful by suggesting otherwise.
The Party's national Congress
The applicants averred that a
resolution was made, at the National Council chaired by the respondent, that
due to the fact that the National Chairman of the party had walked out of the
meeting and would not be attending the National Congress of the party, the national
Organising Secretary would chair the congress of the party.
The holding of the party's congress
could not be cancelled because the National Chairman and his colleagues were
not going to attend. Compare to 4 428
delegates who attended. There was nothing
unconstitutional about the national organizing secretary chairing the event in
the absence of the national chairman.
The respondent attended the congress
and delivered what one would term a key note address, to the delegates. He, however, has sought to disassociate
himself from it. He said what he
addressed was just a gathering of party members but not a party congress. He claimed to have told to 4 428 delegates
that what they were attending was not a party congress but an ordinary
gathering of the party.
The applicants responded by saying that the respondent was
just being blatantly untruthful. The
respondent repeatedly referred to it as the party's congress in his opening
address and in his very opening sentences wherein he said the following:-
“Pamusoroi vakuru veparty
varipano. Pamusoroi our dignitaries, our distinguished
guests to our congress. Pamusoroi varidzi veparty, delegates to
the congress of our party. We are very
grateful that our guests were able to come and join us today. We are grateful that the delegates found
their way to Harare and today we are convening this congress of our party. We are very thankful for the support that has
been shown to this congress.
Now, we are holding this congress of co-operation, a
dispensation of working together.
Zimbabwe is being run by an Inclusive Government of three political
parties. This is the environment, the
situation under which we are holding our congress.
… saka nhasi uno mauya
ku congress of the most important party in the country, mauya ku congress yeparty irikutonga Zimbabwe.”
The above utterances by the respondent illustrate beyond any
doubt that the respondent was convinced in his own mind at that time that he
was attending and addressing the party's 3rd congress. Consequently, he was simply being untruthful
when he turned around and suggested he had addressed the delegates and clearly
stated to them that the gathering was not an MDC congress but an ordinary
meeting of the MDC. He further perjured
himself when he averred that his advice was ignored and some individuals put
themselves in certain positions as if the gathering was the MDC party congress
when it was not.
The correct position is that the gathering was the 3rd
congress of the MDC party where the new leadership of the party was
elected. The respondent withdrew from
the contest.
This court makes the following specific findings:
(a)
The
gathering of 4 428 delegates on 8 and 9 January 2011 was the 3rd
congress of the MDC party.
(b)
The
respondent knew and believed that he was addressing the 4 428 delegates to the
3rd congress of the MDC party.
(c)
The
congress elected a new leadership at that congress. Respondent freely and voluntarily withdrew
from the contest.
(d)
The
respondent took active participation at the congress and fully accepted the
outcome of the congress and that outcome remains valid until declared otherwise
by a court of law.
(e)
The
respondent perjured himself when he averred that what he had repeatedly termed
the party's congress in his address to the 4 428 delegates was in fact an
ordinary party meeting.
Who then is the present party
president?
The respondent averred that he had
never officially indicated that he was not contesting the MDC presidency. As matters stood there had been no
opportunity for him to contest the MDC presidency as no lawful congress had
been held. In the result he remained the
MDC president.
The respondent was again being
untruthful because not only did he withdraw from the party's presidential
contest by personally advising the various provincial chairpersons of his
withdrawal on 7 January 2011 he advised the then national working committee and
later the National Council of his official and formal withdrawal. He went further and gave a full explanation
at the congress on 8 January 2011. The
applicants then quoted verbatim what he said as captured in Disc 1. He spoke in the Chishona and English
languages. What he said was to the
following effect:-
“I as a leader made a personal decision to unite my people so
that they can move forward and work well.
Also, I decided that others should get an opportunity to lead. That is what I said as Mutambara.
Mutambara made a decision before the provincial
councils. The provincial councils of the
party met after Mutambara had said we want people to unite, we want the party
to move from one leader to another leader.
We are building a new culture in our party.
Mutambara made a personal decision before the provincial
councils made their choices. No
provincial council decided to nominate him thinking that he was still in the
contest. Mutambara said he wanted people
to unite. Mutambara said he wanted
leadership renewal to take place in our party.
That is the culture of our party.
That is the philosophy of our party …
Although I will hold no position I will be a soldier in the
party. I will be a soldier in Zimbabwe.”
The above quotation is found at
pages 312 to 3134 of the application.
The above clearly demonstrates that
the respondent further perjured himself when he said he did not officially
withdraw from the race and was still the party president. This court finds that the respondent freely
and voluntarily withdrew from contesting for the presidency of the party or any
position in the party. A new leadership
of the party was elected with Professor Welshman Ncube emerging as the
president of the party. In the result,
Professor Welshman Ncube and the team elected at the congress of 8 and 9
January 2011 remain in control of the party until a court of law declares that
the congress was irregularly held.
This court further finds that
Professor Welshman Ncube immediately became the principal in the Global
Political Agreement upon his election as present of the MDC party. The respondent ceased to be a principal when
he freely and voluntarily relinquished the presidency of the party on 8 January
2011.
The respondent initially accepted
the outcome of the congress and the leadership elected thereat. He however, suddenly changed his stance after
about 4 weeks and began to allege that there was no lawful party congress at
which a new leadership could have been elected.
He claimed to have re-assumed the party's presidency and even purported
to dismiss the legitimate president of the party who was popularly elected at
the congress. In his press statement of
9 February 2011 he had this to say:-
“Consequently, as the president of the party, the key
authority of the party in between main party meetings such a national council,
national executive and standing committee I have had to take drastic remedial
action. With immediate effect, Professor
Welshman Ncube is summarily dismissed from the MDC party. As a non member he has no authority to
organize, participate, or speak on behalf of the party.
We will organize a National Council meeting of the party in
accordance with our constitution, at which meeting this decision will be
ratified. I took this decision after
careful consideration, thorough examination, soul-searching, analysis and
consultation.
Although I have been silent in public from 8th
January 2011 to 7th February 2011, privately I have been
continuously in touch with Prof Ncube, trying to encourage him to heal and
reconcile the party. He has been doing
the opposite. I have been urging him to
respect the rule of law in the country, the party's constitution, and the
country's legal system. He has not
listened. He has left me with no choice
but to take the above measures in order to salvage the image of the party and
re-establish its dignity.”
The respondent's conduct is
difficult to follow and understand in the light of the fact that he had
attended the party's congress and addressed it as such. He had participated in full and accepted the
outcome for at least 4 weeks and then suddenly issued press statements claiming
to have re-assumed the party presidency and thereafter purports to dismiss the
legitimate president of the party.
Further, the respondent had allocated to himself powers which even the
legitimate president of the party does not have in terms of the party's
constitution. The legitimate president
of the party does not have powers to dismiss party members.
The applicants were justified in
launching this application in order to restrain the respondent from persisting
with his strange and dangerous behaviour.
As stated earlier on in this
judgment the outcome of the congress remains valid until and unless it has been
set aside by a court of law. Until and
unless that happens the applicants have a clear right to the leadership elected
at the congress and for that leadership alone to run the affairs of the party.
The conduct of the respondent is
causing irreparable harm to the party.
He purports to still act as its president when he freely and voluntarily
relinquished the presidency at the congress on 8 January 2011. Persist to want to act as the principal of
the party when he is no longer its president. The applicants have no other
satisfactory remedy by which they could secure their rights. Finally, the balance of convenience clearly
favours the applicants in this case. See
Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 at 227 and Flamelily Investment Company (Pvt) Ltd v Zimbabwe Salvage (Pvt) Ltd and Another 1980 ZLR 378 for the
requirements of an interdict.
The respondent had raised some
points in limine wherein it was
suggested that the matter was not urgent but my brother judge who dealt with
the matter felt that it was. I am not
here to review what my brother judge did.
If the respondent was not happy with any procedural issues he should,
with the leave of the court, appealed against them.
It was also raised in limine that there were material
disputes of fact. For instance it was
contended that the gathering of 8 and 9 January 2011 was not the 3rd
congress of the party when in fact is was demonstrated that the respondent was
being untruthful and perjured himself when he made those averments.
In the light of the foregoing
findings this court holds the view that the applicants are entitled to the
final order they seek in terms of the amended draft at page 1 and 2 supra.
Webb, Low & Barry, applicants' legal practitioners
Mbidzo, Muchadehama & Makoni,
respondent's legal practitioners
