CCC renews fight against Tshabangu

The Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, challenging a High Court decision that refused to rescind a default judgment granted in favour of self-proclaimed party secretary-general Sengezo Tshabangu.

The appeal has been lodged by the CCC together with its members Sesel Zvidzai, Concillia Chinanzvavana, Gilbert Kagodora and Shepherd Mushonga. They are being represented by Advocate Tawanda Zhuwarara.

The appellants argue that the High Court erred in law by upholding an objection questioning Tshabangu's lack of authority, despite the existence of three party resolutions confirming that the deponent to the founding affidavit was duly authorised to represent the CCC and prosecute the rescission application on its behalf.

In submissions to the Supreme Court, Zhuwarara contended that the High Court wrongly treated the form of the resolutions as decisive, instead of applying the correct legal test of whether the juristic person before the court had adopted and was actively pursuing the litigation. He argued that the court improperly impugned the CCC's founding affidavit and concluded that the matter was "improperly before the court".

Zhuwarara further submitted that even if the application had been improperly instituted due to a procedural defect capable of being cured, the correct course would have been to strike the matter from the roll rather than dismiss it outright. He said the High Court's approach unfairly foreclosed any opportunity to remedy the defect or to have the matter heard on its merits.

He also criticised the High Court for making what he described as grave and definitive findings on credibility and wrongdoing, particularly the conclusion that the CCC's resolutions were a recent fabrication.

"Such serious adverse findings ought not to be made without a proper evidential foundation and fair procedure," Zhuwarara submitted, adding that the court was dealing with a rescission of a default judgment involving four distinct applicants and that the enquiry before it was procedural, not a final determination of the substantive dispute.

The CCC's legal team further argued that the High Court erred by treating the authority objection as fatal, despite evidence showing that the cited parties were actively participating in the litigation through legal practitioners and filing substantive court papers.

"On principle authority rules exist to prevent unauthorised litigation in a juristic person's name, not to defeat proceedings where corporate participation objectively evidences awareness and adoption of the litigation stance," Zhuwarara submitted.

The party is seeking an order from the Supreme Court setting aside the High Court's decision with costs. It is also asking that the matter be remitted back to the High Court for determination before a different judge.

According to court papers, Tshabangu was a member of the CCC until his expulsion in February 2025 following a disciplinary hearing conducted by Zvidzai, Chinanzvavana, Kagodora and Mushonga, who sit on the party's disciplinary committee.

After his expulsion, Tshabangu approached the court on an urgent basis, seeking a declaratory order that the terms of office of the party's office bearers and main organs elected on May 26, 2019 expired on May 27, 2024. He also challenged his expulsion, arguing that the disciplinary committee was composed of members whose tenure had expired, rendering its decision null and void.

Tshabangu further sought an order declaring that the appointment of the disciplinary committee and the conduct of its proceedings were ultra vires the party's constitution, disciplinary code of conduct and regulations.

On May 6, 2025, the CCC and its co-applicants filed an urgent application seeking rescission of the default judgment in terms of Rule 27(1) of the High Court Rules, 2021. They also sought condonation for failing to file valid opposing papers in line with a case management order and requested an extension of time to do so.

However, after hearing arguments, the High Court dismissed the application, ruling that the deponent to the founding affidavit lacked valid authorisation to defend the earlier application and to bring the rescission application. The court found that there was therefore no rescission of judgment to consider.

The High Court went on to strike out the founding affidavit, ruling that the matter was improperly before the court, and dismissed the application with costs.