|‘Kunonga’s legal moves defective’|
|Tuesday, 04 December 2012 00:00|
Lovemore Chikova News Editor
fees for the work.
It is also the CPCA’s contention that Archbishop Kunonga’s ACPZ was approaching the court with dirty hands.
To this end, its urgent chamber application to stop the evictions should not be entertained by the High Court, argues CPCA.
Mr Jonathan Samukange of Ventu-ras and Samukange law firm last week issued summons at the High Court seeking an order declaring Archbishop Kunonga’s church as the legitimate owner of all Anglican Church property.
The same law firm also filed an urgent chamber application to stop the eviction of Archbishop Kunonga’s chu-rch from the Anglican properties.
Judge President George Chiweshe is set to hear the urgent application in his chambers today.
Responding to the summons, CPCA lawyers Advocates Thabani Mpofu and Adrian De Bourbon filed a counter-application for excerption to the plaintiff’s declaration attached to the summons.
The church also wants to strike out certain portions of the declaration.
It is the lawyers’ argument that the applications by Archbishop Kunonga are bad both in fact and in law.
If ACPZ had paid the lawyers such money, it should be reimbursed.
“Defendant further prays for an order that plaintiff’s legal practitioners must not charge fees for any work rendered to the plaintiff.
“If they have already done so, they (should) reimburse what they have received from the plaintiff through the office of this Honourable Court,” read part of the application by the CPCA.
CPCA also wants the High Court to send a copy of the Supreme Court judgement together with the record of proceedings on the summons to the Law Society of Zimbabwe for consideration of the appropriate action against ACPZ lawyers.
Responding to an urgent chamber application by ACPZ, CPCA lawyers argue that Archbishop Kunonga and his church were in contempt of court and they should first purge themselves before approaching a court of law.
“The essence of the applicant’s application is the argument that it remains in occupation of the properties in defiance of notices of eviction issued in pursuance to a Supreme Court judgement and order.
“The applicant by persisting to occupy the premises in the circumstances is therefore, in contempt of an order of this Honourable Court.
“Applicant cannot approach this court for assistance before it purges its contempt. Accordingly, the applicant should first submit itself to the eviction order and vacate all the premises before it can approach this honourable court for assistance,” reads part of the opposing affidavit by CPCA provincial chancellor Mr Michael Chingore.
It is argued that the application to be heard today was not urgent and that the alleged urgency was “self created”.
CPCA also argues that the High Court has no jurisdiction to hear the urgent chamber application as it seeks to frustrate an order of the Supreme Court.
ACPZ, according to CPCA, has not established any rights to the property in question.