The High Court has imposed punitive costs on Assemblies of God-Back to God (AoGBTG) following its withdrawal of a case against Assemblies of God-Spiritual Movement (AoGSM), which AoGBTG sought to evict from its headquarters in Marondera.
Justice Regis Dembure’s ruling has brought an end to a two-year legal conflict that began in 2023, centering on the ownership of Stand Number 2666T in Rujeko Township, Marondera.
This withdrawal occurred after the trial had commenced and after the plaintiff’s primary witness, Nathan Sethlako, had been subjected to cross-examination by the defendant’s attorney, Lincoln Majogo of Mtetwa and Nyambirai Legal Practitioners.
In the eviction summons filed under R-HCH5359-23, AoGSM was identified as the first defendant, while clerics Luckymore Zinyama, Phillip Zinyama, and David Makwindi were listed as additional defendants.
Chipo Maphosa of Maposa-Mahlangu Attorneys represented the plaintiff.
Upon the request for withdrawal, Justice Dembure remarked that costs on a higher scale are punitive in nature and should only be awarded in special circumstances.
The judge noted that punitive costs were justified in this case due to the plaintiff’s conduct.
In his ruling, Justice Dembure highlighted that the plaintiff had been informed in prior interlocutory judgments of the necessity to provide documentation proving their rights to the property.
Despite these warnings, the plaintiff chose to proceed with the case.
The defendants argued that the withdrawal was prompted solely by the cross-examination, which revealed significant weaknesses in the plaintiff’s claims.
The judge further cautioned litigants against misusing court processes, which leads to unnecessary waste of the court’s time, as well as that of other citizens and the defendants. Justice Dembure also advised church leaders to exercise caution when considering legal action, given the associated costs.
He ultimately awarded punitive costs against the plaintiff.
In its summons filed in 2023, AoG-BTG, represented by Sethlako, alleged that AoG-SM had seceded from the Marondera Assembly.
The plaintiff asserted that it had exclusive rights to occupy the first defendant’s head office at Stand 2666T, Rujeko Township, Marondera, yet failed to specify the documentation that conferred such rights.
When the defendant requested further particulars regarding these claims, the plaintiff stated that it had a lease agreement with the Municipality of Marondera, purportedly entered into “in or about 1978-1980.”
However, on October 27, the plaintiff sought to amend its response, changing “lease agreement” to “agreement of sale.”
Neither document was ever produced in court.
During his testimony, Sethlako claimed that the plaintiff had lost the lease agreement or agreement of sale, and efforts to obtain copies from the Municipality of Marondera were unsuccessful.
Under cross-examination, he admitted that he had not provided any evidence of correspondence with the Marondera City Council.
The parties were scheduled to continue the trial on October 30 for further cross-examination when the plaintiff unexpectedly announced its withdrawal of the summons, citing “hurdles that the plaintiff had encountered.”
 following its withdrawal of a case against Ass){kind=link}