Paul Kadochi & Others v Christian Community Church Trustees (Appeal 63 of 2016) [2018] ZMSC 357 (7 December 2018)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ZAMBIA HOLDEN AT NDOLA Appeal No. 63/2016 SCZ/ 8/020/2016 (Civil Jurhdiction) BCT 'At'EE N : PAUL KADOCHI BENSON MANJIMELA CHARLES KADOCHI CEOFFREV MUBUVA ,l'I. IIEPuauc OF ZAMBIA ll!i! SUPREME COURT J:/:, OF 2AM81A ~ r:7 r,cc_201Q L M. A. S'fEA OF rM~uP C01lM1SS10NER F6;'1>~f0URT ...__ .. P • .;0;,;·.:D;:0.::_X_:5~00~f:!;7,~L~U~S~AK~~~g- J SIMEON MWAMBA MAI/UVA AND 1" APPELLANT 2• 0 APPELLANT 3 RD APPELLANT 4 TH APPELLANT s'" APPELLANT CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY CHURCH TRUITEES RESPONDENT Coram: Wood, Malila and Mutuna, JJS o n 4 th December, 2018 and 7m December, 20 18 For the /\ppellanis: Mr. K. ~ota , rvfossrs \Villiam Nyin.:ntla & Co. For Ute Respondcm.i: Mr. P. l<atu pisha, Messrs Milner & Paul Legal Practitioners JUDGMENT Malila, JS, delivered the Judgme nt of the Court. Cases referred to: 1. ,tuomey-General u. M(Jrcus i\chium.e i I 988) ZN 1. 2. 1-:xa.minatirm Council of Zam.bia tJ. Reliance Technology Lirnitf:td, SCZ ,Judgment No. 4 6 of 2011. 3. tVilson J\!m:;,n,so Zulu v. Avondale Housir'I{/ Pr'Oject (1 <JR2) ZN 172. 4. Nklww cmd Othe,.s " · !Womey-r;enera.l i1 <)(J(JJ ZN 124. Legislation referred to: J2 1. Societies Act, chapter 1 I 9 of the laws of7-etmbia. 2 . Land (Perpetual Succession Act, chapter 288 of the laws of Zamhia. :. J. The Consiitut ion uJ Zumbi" Act Nu. 2 uf 2016, chapler I of 1hc laws of Zambia. A1n ending a cons titution of an e ntity - a ny entity - be it a country, a po lit ica l party, a club or,~ chu rc h, can be pote ntially divisive Lo ils rnembers and may carry wit h il the risk of fracturi ng ,vhat ar e othen.,ise cordial relationsh ips . The dis pute m Lhe present a ppeal a rose from an a mendmen t. of a ch urch constitu t ion u nderla kcn by t he leadership of lhc responden t Christia n Com1nunity Church . Part of th e bre thren were u nenth used wilh tbc process leading to, as ,.,ell as the s u bstance of those amend1nenLs. The ame nded constitution wa s s u b1nitted to the Registrar of Socie ties. The background fa cts are plain. The respondent was a religious organization foun ded as a church and regis tered as such under the provisions of the Societies Act, c hapter 119 of th e laws of Zarr1bia. It was issued with a Cert ifi ca te of Regist ration in 197 1 under the hand of the Registrar of Socie ties. IL had a J3 constitution wh ich created va11ous orga ns and defined power relations . On diver se occasions over t he years, tha t constitution was a mended . T he las t arnendrn enl before the one subject of th is dispu te was in 1997. The respondent was a lso subsequen tly incorporated u nde r the La nd {Pe rpetu a l Succession) Act, ch apter 2 88 of Lhe Jaws of Zrunbia, and was issued with a Certificate of Incorporation under the hand of the . Min is ter of Lands. Th e dr ama anirriating t he presen t appea l s tarted to unfold after the respondent 's leadership body, th e Apostolic Cowici l, convened a rnee Ling in Occcn\bcr, 201 2 a t wh ich it was resolved to an1end the res ponden t 's constitution. The amended constit ution was d ubbcd th e 2 01 3 Constitution . T he ap pellants , ,vho are n1embers and Elders in the respondenl c hu rch were, as intunated already, unhappy with the a1ncndmcn ts and thus cons titu ted th e1nselves u1to a pressure group of sorts t ha t refused to recognize th e amc ndme nr.s. They regarded tl1ese run endmen ts as irregular ,u1d un consti tulionaJ. T hey t hus active ly agitated for a return to t he s ta tus quo ante. J4 Their case was that the Apostolic Council was nol provided for in lh e consLiLution of t.he chu rch and could, therefore, not lawfully amend t he const itut ion. According to the appellan ts, tJic body that was properly rruu1dated to arncnd the constitut ion was the Translocal Council of E lde rs (TCEj whic h was 1nade up of representat ives of Elders from a u ton ornous local cln .1rc hes. They viewed the Apostolic Council as a. mere congregation of individuals who purported to act on behalf of t he respondent. T hey, to this end, made numcro1..1s re presentations lo the Registr ar of Socie ties, urging the la tter not t.o recognize the amendmen ts to the church constitution. The Registr ar of SocieLies, for h is pa rt, i1nplored t he parties to resolve th e diJTcrcnces between them amicably and in accordance wjt.h t heir c hurch's constitution. By the guidance of the RegisLrar o f Societies , the 1997 Constitution as it stood before the pu rported arncncbncnr. ·was to hold until Lhc parties resolved their d isputes . According lo tJ,c appella nts, the respondent declined Lo ta ke t his advice and wen t ahead Lo expel th em on the basis of t he contested ,uncnded Constitution of 2 013. JS The Apostolic CounciJ d id not take ki nd ly to what it regarded as the baseless n1achinations of the appellants. De!em1ined lo maintain discipline in t he church, the Apostolic Council did , s ometime in February, 20 I 3, hold an extraordinary meeting where it resolved lo charge the appellant~ for gross ind isc ipline a nd subsequently suspended the1n pending further disciplinary action , d irecting that they exc uJpate tl'1e1nselves in t he meantilne. Unsurprisingly , the appellants did not exonerate thernselves, prompting the /\postolic Council to expel th em from the chu rch . Unde terred by these deve lop1n en ts, the appellants cont inued to exer t t heir views over t he a ffairs of the church, purporting il1 sorne inslanccs to assume leadership. Being an illegitimate body in the view of the appellan ts, the Apostolic Council, could not take any d isciplina1y action against thc1n which was the preserve of the Elders and the respective JocaJ churches. l'vleanwh ile, the appella nts also decided lo expel the Apostolic C0Lu1cil n1ernbers . J6 \Vithout. the auLhoiiLy of the Apostolic Cou ncil, the appellant-5 issued notices for t he International General l\·leeting which was held on the 6d• a nd 7c, J uJy , 20 13, a t Kimiteto Teen !\.fission a t Solwezi. The respondent ch urch viewed t his as t he clearest s ign yet of a rebellion on the parl of th e a ppellcu1ts cmd determined to do cveryLhing in its power to contain the situa t ion. As the impasse contin ued to hold, the opt ions available to the parties were di. Jn in ishing. Th e responden l ch urch then initiated legal proceedings in the lower court against the appella nts, s eekin g th e endorsen1ent of the High Court, th rough a declru·ation, that the appellants were la,vfully expelled fro,n the church. It a lso sought an inj unction against t hcrn co prevent them from in lerfer i.ng in the operations of the church . The respondent fur thern1ore prayed for a declaration that the lnternalional General lvleetin g held on th e 6 "• and 7 1 " J uly, 201:3 was illegal ,md, therefore , that all the action s taken at the said meeting were a nullity. Add itionally Lhc responden t sought d ao1ages (Uld COSLS. Th e respondent 01aintained that the TCE had unan irnously been renru11ed Apostolic Council in 201 l at a ,neeting held at J7 Sach ibondu in Mwin ilunga District, a nd that the Apostolic Ch urch is the legit imate body lo make a ,nendments to the constit u tion of the chu rch . T he responden t's position was that the TCE comprised coun<.:ilors ,met oth er decision ,nakers whos e decisions a re in1ple111en ted by a co,nm ittec. The arnendrnen ts to the co nstitut ion went through th e lawful processes a nd were duly lodged with and accepted by the office of th e Registrar of Societies. ln the respondent 's est imation, t he d isciplinaiy action taken against the a ppellm1ts for forrn ing their own sccret '3 riat and bringing th e n,une o[ t he church in to dis repute, was lawfully done. In the ir response, t he appellants denied being lawfully d ivested of th eir rnernbersh ip in the church. They relied on the facts a s we have already nai-rated them ear lier in t his judg,nent. They put up a cow1ter claiin in wh ich t hl~Y sought a series of decla.raco,y orders as well as an injunction re straining the responden t. from inte rfering 111 th eii· exercise of the r igh ts as 1ne1nbers of t he churc h. After h earing th e pa rt ies w itnesses a nd considering the docu111ents filed, the High Court was o[ the view tha t the J8 overarch ing issue ,vas whether t he 1997 Constitution was validly an1ended . Th e court found th a t for th e church':; constitution to be validly arncndcd, two -t hi rds of t he TCE s hould have agreed on the a1n endn1en ts. Based on Lhe oral and documentary evidence she had received, t he judge found that the number of local chur che:; was 500 1nadc up of 4 00 bra nches in Za1nbia, 65 in Angola and 35 in th e Den1ocratic Hepublic of Congo (DRC). S he furthe r fou nd that the l 997 Constitu t ion provided in Article /\(5) th at the TCE should be chosen fro1n dist.rict churches. Article Q(4) states that ainendmenls requ ire two-thirds of th e TCI£ membersh ip, representing registered loca l churche:s, whi le J\1i icle ~'(4) st.ates th at Lhe TCE n1e1nbers should be ch osen by t heir churches. She concluded that th e n1en1bers of l hc TCE thus cornc fron1 distr ic t ch urches and not fro1n the local churches as contended by the appellants. She furt11er found that th e TCE !Vlccting held 111 Septen1ber, 2000 (uld at.tended by 30 members resolved to ren ame the TCE a s the National Cou ncil. The learned trial judge also accepted, as factually established, r.he respondent's na,1·ar.ion t11at another meeting of J9 the TCE h eld in Dece1nber 2004 dis solved the TCE a nd rep laced it with a 15 member Apostolic Team led by a Mr. Chilapu as Over:;eer. The Apostolic Colmcil met in April, 2011 and was atte nded by 67 people. It decided the compo::.ilion o f 2 7 leaders ,vith 22 of the m re presenting the 22 d ist ricts which included Angola a nd DRC. The xnccting of the Apos tol ic Council held in Dece1nber 2012 approved the amended Constitu tion of 201 3, which amendment i::. the subject of the present dispu te. That meeting was allcndcd by 23 members of the Apostolic Colmcil and 25 othe r members of th e church , bringing the total lo 48. Her conclu sion wa::i t.ha t prior to 1997 1'he TCE coxn prisecl 4 1 men1bers u.ntl th is was reduced to 27 in 2011. Th e TEC was renamed an t\postolic Team and later the Apostolic Council but that these changes had not been reflected in the respondent's constitution uni ii 20 l3. She furthe r found that the Apostolic Council was lhc legiti ma te body to ;:i mc nd the const itution afte r its change of na n1e frorn TCE . By the judge's arith1netic, two-thi,·ds of the mc,nbers of l hc TC£ under the 1997 Constitution \\~Js ilpproximately 31 while two-thirds of27 members after April 2011 wus approxirnat.cly 18. Jl O Her cone I usion was that tJ1e passing of the an1ended Constirurjon by 48 members exceeded lhc tl1reshold of two thirds which was 31 mcn1bers. The Constilulio11 was thus validly runcnded and properly lodged with t he Regis trar of Societies. On Lhc i::;suc whethe r the appellanLs we re va lidly expelled, the learned judge, after cxan1ining and provisions of Article 0 clauses l lo 8 of the 1997 ConstiLution and Arlicle 16 of the 2013 constitution, held that lhc procedure for expelling members was not followed in respect o[ the appe llants and therefore that their expuls ion was irrcgu l,)r. The disciplina ry provisions in the two constitucions, i.e. th e '.2007 and 20 13 Cons t itulions arc s imilar and require tha t the disciplining of Elde rs and rnen1bers of the Apostolic Council of elders is to be carried out by fellow Elders or Apostolic Council members in conjunction witl1 the district leadership or Elders of 1.he churches i11 which they serve. The appella nt,:;' exp·uls ion lcUcrs d id nol s how tha t th e Elders or Apostolic Counc il leaders consulted the disldcl leaders hip or elders of the local churches where the appellants belonged . In regard LO lhe claim by the respondent 1.ha1 an injunction be issued against the appellants, stopping them from performing Jl l or acting as C hi1rch Elders or re presentatives of t he ch urc h and from in terrncdd ling in the affafrs of the c; hu rch , t he lea r ned ji1dge did not make any decision but urged the part..ies , as believers to reconcile, based on Biblical principles and heal the wounds that had been occasioned. She suggested the use of a neutral party in the reconciliatio11 proct:ss. As to ,vhe Lher the; lnternationa.1 Genera l Meeting of 6lh to 7°h July, 2013 was illegal and all decisions made thereat a nullity, the learned judge found that the m eeting was not sanctioned by any provisions of 1 he con s titution and was accord ingly illega l and decisions made th ereat were a nullity. The learned judge also declined to give the appellant,; darnages for inconvenience, stating that the respondent c;ontributed as rnueh to the mala ise. Tur ni ng to 1h e appellan ts' coun ter cluim, the le.u-necl judge declined to grant the declaration that Lhc amendment of the constitution wus null and void. She reiteruted her earlier finding that the amendments were duly effected. She allowed the prayer J12 for a dt:daration that the appellants were irregulary dismissed fro,n the church. Unhappy with tht: judgment or the court, t he appellants hnve now a ppealed to th is court and fro nted two grounds of appeal as follows: CROUNDONE The court belnw crracl in /'act and in l<.tw ro have helcl Illar. th~ subject Constitution was tJalidly mne,1d,-"!d and lodges with llw f?P.gist.rar of Societies. 'rhis holtli11g was agains t rlir. weight of<hE <?vide1we 011 record and agaillsr the wq,r«ss provisions of the Con.slilution purported. to be amended wllercin the c:omposition of lhP. "/"rw,.slocal Council of ,.;1ders is 'J•:lders represerning Locui Churches· as nppo.sed io /Jisrricls QS held. CROUND1WO Tlte court below r.rrcd in fact and iit law <o luwe held that the International Cem, rtr/ Meeting held by the Defendants on S'>, ti'• arid 7"" July, 2013 fLnd decisio,1.< passed 1/iercat are a 11111/ity and Illegally done, whicJr wa$ against ihe P.nlitlemerits of the appellants under the law and rhe c~on~titulion of t.heir dglu cm<l freedom to a!.sociure a.mong their re.spec.tiuo loool ch,u.rchcs. Heads of argument were filed in support of the respective par1 ics' positions by their learned Advoca tes. lvlr. Aor.a appeared for Lht: a ppellan t wh ile lvlr. Katupisha appeared for the respondent. J13 \Ve allowed Mr. Bola's application to amend his heads of a rgument by mention ing not only Article 2 0 of the Republica n Constitution ch ap ter l of the laws of Zambia bul to include article 21 a well. Cou nsel for the a ppella nts stn :sscd in th<.:ir heads of argument, a rather ob\'ious point at the outset.. This was that the appellants had not appealed against the declara tion by the lower court tha t th e ir expulsion was ag,l ins t t he provisions of th e constitution of the respondent church and thus null and void . This, of course, s h ould be the posi t ion granted that the learned judge held that the ex puls ion of the appellants was irrei;.,u_lar ly done, meaning that they re1nained members of the church. The first. ground of appeal was purely interprcta tional in substance. II centered uround the eon1posilion of tht: body which was mandated to amend the respondent church's constitution, that is to say, the TCE and other pa rticip,u ,ts. \Vhile the appellru,ts contended that the required quoru,n of two-th i. J·ds of the TCE was premised on representation from the registered local chur ches, the responde nt's interpret.a lion on t he ot her hand wa::i that. it was the d istricts which cou11ted. The lower court judge • J14 held lhal the me,nbers of lhe TCE were to come from district ch urc hes a nd not local chw·ches . Thc conte ntion by the lcai·ned counsel for tl1e appellants was mat the lower court had rightly directed its mind as regards the c01nposition of the 'l'CE; th at the cou rt correclly cited Article F of lhc constitu tion but fell into error by h oJdjng that the said article has to be read in light of Article A clause S(u) and (b). In so doi,;g, (he lower court subordineited a clea r provision in the con stitution relating to amendment of ilie constitution to a provision which was unrelated to .imending ilie con:;Litution. In this sense, th e court. misdirected itself. Mr. Bota quoted Articles 1\(5) and Q(4) of me 1997 Constitulion which had been referred to by the tri al judge in her judgrnent. The two sections read as follows: ".'i(o) The genel'al acimir1istration of churches shall he done by zhe Trans/or.al Cowwil of Elders (1'Cl':J, acco,·diny 1.0 t;ph. 4: 1 J.' •1/qJ In the eucru of ,1111e11dmc111s, U(}dit.ions, deleru>lls or rorrections being required, rite upproual of1wu-thirds {2/ 3} of the recogrli7.ed '/'ranslocal Council of Bldcrs represe11ting reqistered local church.cs witllin the Christ.ion. Communit.y Church, shall bt:: re.quired." JlS The learned counsel submitted that for purposes of amending the constitution the quorum fur the TCE is based on reprei;enlation or local c hurches and not districts. Counse l a lso quoted article Q of lhe Constitut ion ,u1d subm itted thal, that provision , which relates spedficaJJy to ,unend ing the constitution, equally refer,; to a quorum of the TCE reprci;cnting local churches rather than districts. He furtheru,orc re ferred us to the evidence of witnesses in the record of appea l and ended \\~th the submission that in Article S(a), which relates to the general administration of churches and not the arncndment of the constitution, l he re is re fere nce to t he TCE being chose n fro1n dis trict churches . OU1cr than this, the preponderant refe rence to TCE representation is to local churches. We were urged lo uphold ground one. As regards grow1d two of the appeal, i l was contended that 1hc holding of the lower court in respect of the International Genera l Meeting he ld by lhe appellants on the 5,1., 6"' and 7th of ,July 20 13 contravent:d the rights of the appellants under the law und the respondent's con~litution. J16 Coun sel s u bmiLted Lhut the appellan ts had always had the li berty to assoc iate in conference as they did. I n doing so, they exercised their guaranteed right to association and assembly under Article 20(1) and 21 of the Constitution of Zambia. He quoted article 20 of L.hc Constitution before :;ubn1itting that by congregating as they did, the appellants wl.'re exercis ing their constitutio na l righ ts and t hus did nothing illegal. In orally augmenting ground two of the appeal, Mr. Bola was al pains to press the point that the conduct of the appel lants, which the respondent found otTensive, was in fac t within Lhc broad er Republican Con s ti lution-sanctio nccl freedoms of association an d asse1nbly unde r Articles 20 and 2 1 a,; well as within the right,,; conferred 011 the appellants as members of the respondent church to cooperate and to congregate in confe re nce as they d id in July 2 013. The re was, according to co u11,scl, nothing unr.owa rd or un becon1ing for the appellan ts r.o have cul led for a n1eeting with other brethren. He specifically called our attention to Article '1 of the constitution of the respondent. It was wrong therefore, according to 1\tl r. Bola, for t.he lower cou rt to have found illega lity in I.he convening and J17 holding of the mcc1ing in July 2013 - par1icularly in view of the constiti1 t ion freedoms available to the appellant:; u nde r the Bill of Righ ts . \Ve asked Mr. Bota whether indeed by voluntarily assuming membership of the respondent church, 1 he appellants had not in fact undertaken to s ubscribe to the rules of t he church which defu1<od how the freedorns of assembly und association were Lo be undertaken if they related to church m.ttl'ers. l\-tr. Sota was unrelenting in alleging a violation of the appeU!U'lt's constitution al rights. \Vhen referred to lhc claim as originally framed in th e ll igh Court, lvlr. Bola, however, conceded that issues to do with the Bill of Rights were not raised in that court nor was the correct procedure for seeking redress for .,.;olations of provisions of the Bil l of Rights em ployed. Cou nsel nonet he less 1.uged us t.o uph old grou nd two or the appeal as well. In reacting to t hese submissions counsel for the respondent vehe1nen tly opposed the appeal, subm it ting that t he appe lla nts appear to have so me,vhat losl t rack of lhc h istorical change~ I J18 made to the respondent organisaLion to wh ich the firsl appellant was in fact a pw·Ly. Cou nsel was here rcfon·ing to the events leading to the change of name of the 1'CF: and its composition as were recounted by lhe lower court in its judgment. The . substan ce of thal narration h as been captured earlier on in this judgn1enl. As regards Lhe change of n a1nc from TCE to Apostolic Council it was submitted lhat the first and fourth appellants were in attendance in the mccti ngs that took the decision and the first appe llant Elder was redesignatcd as ,u1 Apostle - a title h e happ ily assurncd and uses. The respondent dispelled the notion held by the appellants that lhc TCE's composition is based on churches and not districts. This, accordiJ"1g to counsel, is a misunderstanding of the wordiJ",g of t he conslitur.ion . Accordi ng to the respondent., a ll churches arc found in districts in which the church is situa1cd and hence the provision of Article S(u) that the general ad ministration of churches shall be done by the TCE chosen from d istric t c hurches . The learned COLtn,;c l sub1nitted that the Elders from th e regi8lcrcd local ch urches in rc,;pective tustricts )19 fon:n the TCE. These J::ldcrs from various district chu rches came together lo form a Coun cil of Elders which was lotter renamed District Apostles. The District Apos tles made up the Apostolic Council which succeeded 1hc TCE. Mr. Kat11 pisha conLcnded t hat Lhc lower court judge gave a correct narration of the sc(Juence of even ts leuding to the amendment of lhc constitution. That narration by the court represcnl,; he r find ing:i of fact. He sub,nitted Lhat what. the appellant is seeking to do under this ground of appeal is effectively to reverse the lower cou rt's findings of fact contrary to the cs1a.blis hed gene ral rule t hat an a ppellate court will nol lightly inlerfcre with such findings except in very Jimjtcd circumstances. The cases of At1om«y-Cicncral u. Marcus t\c/uume', r...x.amiruuitms Coun(..'1/ uj' Xom bia v. Relim1cc.~ Technology L.ir,1 ited2, Vlilsnn Ma.,auso Zulu u. A uondale / lousing ProjcctJ wid Nkltaza wuJ Olhen; u. t\uomcy•Gtmeral' were oil cited 10 buttress that submission. \Ve we re urged to disrniss ground one of the a ppeal. Turning lo ground two of the appeal, Mr. Katupisha argued th at the Lntc rnat ionu l General i'v1cc1'ing of 5 1" t.o 7• h July 2013 ,u1d the decisions passed al that meeting were properly treated as a J20 nul lity as they were iUeguJ. In supporring the holding of the lower court three reasons were given by the learned counsel for the respondent. First, that the rr,celin.g in question was held against the advice of the Registru r of Societies who had specifically advised Lhat the parties were lo m eet in the presence of representatives from the Registrar of Societies. Second, that t he respondent had obtained an ex·pan.e order of injun ction on 3'" July 2013 restra ining the a ppeUunls from holdi1'1g t he said meeting pending the inter-partes hearing on 21"' July 2013. Notwithstanding due scr•:ice of t he said in ju nction un the appeUunt.s by the O fficer-in-Charge of Pol ice a t Solwczi, th<:! appellants blatantly ignored the order. Third, Charles Kadochi, the third appellant, who purported to convene t he n1ecting, had no authority tu do so since at t hal time a functional Secretarial of the church with lead ers mandated to call such meetings, was in ex:istt:!ncc. Counsel stressed the poin t thar. although t he respondent's constitutiun d id en liU<.: the appellunLs to assuci:)t.e \\~Lh other church members, the specific meeting was intended to be for the J21 two factions of the church membership m the presence of representatives from the Registrar of Societies. The learned cow1seJ for the responden t ended by :iubmitting that the conkntion that 1\rticle 20(1) of the Zambian Constitution guaruniccd the appcllunts the freedom of assoc iation anti assembly, was misplaced as the Zarnbian Co nstitu lio n d id no t srn1ction anarc hy. \Ve were urged to dji;rniss ground two of the appeal as well. \Ve have carefully considered the arguments of the parties in th is 1n allcr . The contesta tion is on fa irly narrow poinls, nruuely, first whethcr the constitution of lhe respond ent chu rch wus ruuended by a properly constiluted body. Second, and equally sigruficanl , whether the appellants had a viable claim 10 calling and holding lhc Tn ten1ational General l\-1eeting of t he 5"• to the 7:h ,July, 2 0 13. rr not, what the efficacy of the proccerung,:; and resolutions of that n1eeting arc. \Ve h ave slated a lready rhal l11c issue h<'re ts in t.erpretation a l in s u bstance . The constitu t ional p rovis ion t h,lt J22 calls for inlerpretation i:. an Ar ticle headed · AM~: Nl >M~:NTS TO THE CONSTITUTION." It reads as follO'\\'S: • 1. This rons1irurio11 was written by tilt' n,cognized 1nm.slocal leadership of the commilted societies J...'11.0wn "" the CHRIST/i\N COMMUNffY CH URCI I (CCC}. 2 , It shall be reviewed by them periodic.ally lo determine if m11en.<lm.ent:'ii additions, dektions or <."'QrreCfion.s are nuded. J. Nv <1mendmants1 udditintt..<:;., delellon::; or correctior1s ca.n be ,ruuJe to lhe constit:J,Jtion willwut the krwwledgc of rhe quonan of tile '/'rans/ocul C<>uncil of Elders (fCEJ. 4. In the eocnt of amendments, addition..s. deletions or corrcctiu1is being required, cl,e u.ppmval of two thircis /2/:J} of tl'le recognized 'J'ransluca.l Cm.mci.l ofEld.ers repre$enting 1·egi$lf!.rt1d local cJiurches within lhe CIIUISTTA,V COMMUNITY Cl/URCH s/1uU be rcqiiired. 5. 111is constih,tic,n. was wrillen. primarily lO ,neet zfle requ.iremcnt.s of Che Societies Ace CJ\ P I 05 of 1971 m id Co oj]er ,,.,,ie,·al rules for rhe :;;ocieties regis1e, ~d w ith rhe Cl ll?IS'l1AN COMMUJ\1/'l'Y Cl/UNCH. Ii poirus to lhe Word of God, whirh ntusl remain the final und binding authority. • In our unders tandi ng of this provision, (here is no doubt whatsoever that any amendment of the constitution, by paragraph 4, reqLLires th e approwil of two- thirds (2/3) of the recogn i?:ed Transloca l Council of Elden; rcpresenLing registered • • J23 local chu,·ches. The use of the term "recognized Translocal Council of Elders' carries the connolalio11 that there could be unrecognized Translocal Council of Elders. This however was not raised by either party as an iss ue. In the Introductory part of the con;.t.itution u nder Article AS(a) t he general administration of churches is done thr ough the TCE Elders (TCJ::} chosen fro1n district churches. A further provision dealing with the TC1•: and other leaders , is Article f re lating to Adm in istration. Paragraph 4 states that th ese leaders shal l be chosen as the ,, ccd a rises by t heir churches, LO co-ordinate, admi nister and rc:presenl Lhc chur ches they serve. \JJith the argument by the appellant that lhc TCE which is empowered to amend the constitution is <>ne representing local churches within the respondent church , the question we pose is whether t here urc various kinds of TCIJ: men1bers appoin ted differenlly. \Vhile the appellant ,naintains that the appointment of the TCE members to amend the constitu tion ,;hould be drawn from local chu rc hes , the respondent argues that 1:here is only one ' • 1'CE, wh ich in add it ion to being mandated to amend the constitution, is also entrusted with administ.raiive duLics under Arlick: A S(a). We ha ve already referred w Article F(41 which s tutcs that 1'CE and others shall be chosen as 11,c need arises l,y their churches, to coordjnut<.:, administer Md represent the churches they se rve, through leaders who chose lhcrn . \Ve a re inclined to accept as correct, the interpretation placed on the interface between local churches and clistrict chu rc hes - rnean ing lhat the m embers or lhc 1'CE c ho:;cn by local ch urches also represent tlistricts since churches are to be found in districts. In the absence of clear provision in the constitution of the respondent suggesting that the re arc different categories <)f TCE members with different rnodcs or appoint1n enl , ou r view is that \.his interpretation is the only plausible one in these circumstances. Conseque ntly, we hold that the provi,; ion of the constitution requiring the approval of two-thirds (2/3) of TCE n:fcrs to members appointed or chosen in accordance with clause F(4) of • ; • J25 1he constitution by local churches but who equally represent district churc hes. \Ve accordingly hold that ground one of the appeal is without n1erit and we dismiss il acconlingly . As regards ground two of the appeal. it is abundantly clear lo us tha t the teurn of the appellants :ind their followers side s tepped th e provis ions of t he respondent':; constitution e ither because th ey mis understood those prov1s1ons, or they delibera tely embarked on a course designed to promote tl1eir own individuaJ leadership interests. Oy ignoring the existing leadership and convening a meeting u si ng powers t hey d id not constit utionally possl/:;S, t.hey were well on Lh e course to ,;pclling anarchy in the n :sponden l church . Alth ou gh the a rgum ent a dvanced by the a ppellant alleging violation of the a ppellan t's constitution,ll ,·ights under the Bill of Rights have bec11 re ndered moot by Mr. F!nta's own concession that they were not part of the case as pleaded in the lower court, we are inclined to comment upon I.he san,e if only to dispel a c01nmon myth. Once persons acccpL to be mern bers of a cl ub or un associat ion wii h a constitution stalin g how things s hould l.,c done, they h ave in essence agreed to circumscribe their rights L )26 u nder th<' Dill of Hight:. to the ('X f<:nt th at the ir unresLnctcd exercise ofthcirconslilu tional r igh ls would ru n 1:on tra with Lhc:ir obligations as members. The meetings convened and held by I he a ppellants a nd others in July 201 3 were consequently unconstil11tional; u nconst itutional in t he lim ited sense or co11t.rave ning t he respondents constitutio11. The out c:01nes or such a mc<'ling can on ly equ :illy be unconstit utional. \Ve thl1 S ugree wit h the respondent I hat t11e meeti ng u11d its 01l t comcs have n o legal validity. Ground two or the appeal n1ust fail also. The result is th a t 1.his app<:al fails and is dis,nissecl with costs. '· ............... ...... ............... < \ - p \, .......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . -.-"-.:. M. MAULA SUPREME COURT JUDGE l