THE long-running property dispute between the Nathan Setlhako-led Assemblies of God — Back To God (AoG-BTG) and Assemblies of God — Spiritual Movement (AoG-SM) is set to return to the High Court tomorrow, where an appeal involving church property in Marondera will be heard.
The matter, filed under HCH 6285/25, lists AoG-SM, Luckymore Zinyama and Phillip Zinyama as appellants, with AoG-BTG cited as the respondent.
AoG-SM is being represented by Lincoln Majogo of Mtetwa & Nyambirai Legal Practitioners.
At the centre of the dispute is Stand 4355 Cherutombo/Nyameni in Marondera, with the appellants challenging a lower court ruling which they argue improperly granted final relief when only interim relief had been sought, pending the determination of related proceedings.
The case was previously postponed after the court indicated that the initial bench assigned to hear the appeal was not properly constituted. It had earlier been set down for March 19 this year before Justices Takuva and Chikowero.
At that appearance, Benjamin Magogo, instructed by Chipo Mahlangu of Maposa Mahlangu Attorneys, represented AoG-BTG.
In their appeal papers, the appellants argue that the lower court erred by making findings on a property ownership despite what they say were unresolved material disputes of fact. They further contend that they had placed an agreement of sale before the court, while AoG-BTG allegedly did not produce documents proving ownership.
“The court a quo erred and grossly misdirected itself by granting an interdict despite evidence that the appellant's construction on the property in dispute was lawful, having been sanctioned by a lawful and extant agreement of sale and unchallenged authority from the Municipality of Marondera,” the appellant submitted.
- AoG property feud returns to High Court
Keep Reading
They also argue that the court wrongly concluded that AoG-BTG had established a clear right to the property.
The respondent, represented by Maposa Mahlangu Attorneys, did not dispute that the lower court erred but argued that the error does not justify the relief sought by the appellants.
“To start with, as already indicated above, the respondent does not take issue with the grounds of appeal, as it is apparent that the court a quo erred in many respects. As such, its decision is liable to be set aside by this court,” the church submitted.
However, AoG-BTG is seeking the matter to be remitted to the magistrates’ court for fresh determination. It is also opposing any adverse costs order, a point expected to draw interest given previous cost disputes between the parties.
The appeal has also drawn attention to the role of Maposa Mahlangu Attorneys in the matter. Magogo confirmed he acted for AoG-BTG under instruction from Mahlangu.
Mahlangu has acknowledged she is a member of AoG-BTG. When asked whether this posed a professional conflict and whether she was aware of a Law Society of Zimbabwe complaint regarding her conduct, Magogo did not directly respond, instead indicating that Mahlangu was best placed to answer.
Meanwhile, some church members have called on the warring factions to pursue dialogue and consider an out-of-court settlement to end the prolonged litigation.
