Anglican Church Challenges Kunonga In Supreme Court

The Chief Justice ruled that while he reinstated the appeal by the CPCA, he categorically stated that ‘the appeal shall not suspend the operation of the order’ giving the ex-communicated Dr Kunonga full custody of Anglican properties, yet he left the Church voluntarily to form his own Province of Zimbabwe.

In light of these developments, clergy and members of the laity belonging to the Anglican Diocese of Harare (CPCA) across Harare, Mashonaland West, East and Central have been receiving threats, constant harassment and lately severe beatings from Kunonga’s hooligans, masquerading as clergy, accompanied by ‘certainly hired thugs’.

The latest casualty is Reverend Jonah Mudowaya who was severely assaulted in Chinhoyi on Wednesday 24 August 2011.

 In the court challenge, filed Wednesday 24 August 2011, the Anglican Diocese of Harare (CPCA) argues that paragraph 3 of the order that granted Kunonga custody of Anglican properties in Case Number SC 180/09, judgement Number SC19/11 by the Chief Justice in his chambers to the effect that the ‘noting of the appeal should not suspend the operation of the order’ is null and void for being in contravention of sections 18(1), 18(1a), 18 (9) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.

 The CPCA argues further that: “Any actions taken by or on behalf or in the name of Kunonga and his trustees on the basis or pursuant to Judgment SC19/11 should be reversed, and the status quo aute as at the time that judgment was given shall prevail.”

 The Diocese of Harare (CAPCA is demanding that Kunonga’s agents, followers, representatives should restore to the CPCA all property, movable or immovable which they took, seized, occupied or otherwise took possession of from the Anglican Diocese of Harare (CPCA).

 In his judgement, in paragraph 3, while acknowledging the multiple applications and counter applications by the CPCA and Kunonga, the Chief Justice ironically ruled that: “For the avoidance of doubt, the judgment will not be suspended by the noting of an appeal against it.”

He said the multiplicity of these applications is simply adding ‘to the confusion and hampering expeditious finalisation of the dispute between the parties’. His judgement has furthered the confusion, unfortunately.