Presiding Bishop, Methodist Church of Southern Africa and Others v Mtongana and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Chetty J, Ebrahim J and Schoeman J
• Judgment Date: 15 September 2006
• Citation: 2008 (6) SA 69 (Tk)
• Docket Number: A76/2006
• Hearing Date: 15 September 2006
• Counsel: Names of Counsel and their instructing attorneys not supplied.
• Court: Transkei High Court

Chetty J: D

[1] This appeal represents a further stage in matters ecclesiastical pertaining to the Methodist Church of Southern Africa (MCSA) and comes before this court with leave of the Supreme Court of Appeal. It E has its genesis in the appointment of the third appellant as the Superintendent Minister of the Mthatha/Ncambedlana circuit 1306 of the MCSA by its connexional executive. That decision engendered incendiary outrage from the aggrieved respondents and culminated in an agreement concluded between them and the connexional executive of the MCSA to submit to the arbitrant of the MCSA the question whether F the third appellant's appointment as such complied with the Laws and Disciplines (the L & D) and related regulations/practices of the MCSA.

[2] Pursuant to an arbitration hearing conducted in accordance with the appellant's L & D, the arbitrators made an award on 14 November 2003 in the following terms:

G 1. The decision to appoint Rev Mnaba as Superintendent is set aside and is referred back to the Connexional Executive to consider afresh.

2. When considering the decision afresh cognisance must be had of the petition of the complainants referred to at the CE meeting of H September 2003. Obviously in considering it afresh, the CE can have regard to any other factor which it feels is necessary in order to arrive at its decision on whether this is an 'exceptional case' and whether there is a 'strong motivation' for it. This could for example include amongst other things reassessing whether the reasons given previously by the CE are still adequate.

I [3] Thereafter the first appellant, acting in terms of the L & D as the connexional executive between its meetings, himself considered the matter and appointed the third appellant as the Superintendent Minister. I shall deal with the first appellant's reasons for so doing in due course. Suffice at this stage to say it is not in issue that the L & D vested the first J appellant with the requisite authority to so act instead of the connexional

Chetty J

executive. The appointment galvanised the respondents into action and A spawned two applications, the first, under case No 45/2004 against the first and second appellants (as respondents) for an order that the arbitration award be made an order of court and the second, under case No 823/2004, against the three appellants for a review of the first appellant's decision to appoint the third appellant. B

The application under case No 45/2004

[4] It is common cause that the application to have the arbitrator's award made an order of court was launched after the first appellant's appointment of the third appellant. As no relief was sought against either of the first or second appellants, they merely filed a notice to abide the decision. C In the accompanying affidavit, however, the first appellant elaborated in some detail on the factors which influenced the decision to appoint the third appellant. He denied that he dismissed the arbitrator's decision; that he intended to renege on the pre-arbitration agreement or the agreement itself; or that he disregarded the arbitration award. His raison D d'être he expounded as follows:

5.3 On the contrary I accepted the Arbitration Award as final and binding, and acted accordingly. It is important to...