The High Court has ruled in favor of Sengezo Tshabangu, dismissing an attempt by the Citizens Coalition for Change (CCC) leadership to overturn an earlier judgment that questioned the party’s disciplinary authority. The decision keeps intact a ruling that undermined the legality of Tshabangu’s expulsion and deepens the ongoing leadership and control battle within the opposition party.
In a judgment delivered on 29 December 2025, the High Court of Zimbabwe struck out the CCC’s application, finding that the party failed to properly authorize its legal challenge. As a result, the court dismissed the case with costs, leaving Tshabangu’s earlier court victory untouched.
Tshabangu was expelled from the CCC in February 2025 following disciplinary proceedings conducted by the party’s national disciplinary committee. He then approached the High Court on an urgent basis, arguing that the CCC’s main organs and office bearers elected in May 2019 had exceeded their constitutional terms, which he said expired on 27 May 2024.
He further argued that the disciplinary committee that expelled him was unlawfully constituted, making both the process and the outcome invalid. In April 2025, the court ruled in his favor after striking out the CCC’s opposing papers for failing to attach a valid resolution authorizing the party to defend the case.
Related Stories
Seeking to reverse that outcome, the CCC and several senior officials returned to court asking for the earlier judgment to be set aside and for permission to file fresh opposing papers. The party said its failure to attach the correct authorizing resolution was an honest clerical error made under pressure and insisted the matter was urgent due to possible consequences for parliamentary representation and party governance.
The court rejected those arguments. It found that the resolutions relied upon by the CCC were too broad, lacked case-specific detail, or were passed after the litigation had already begun, making them legally defective. The judge reaffirmed settled law that authority to litigate must be specific, clearly linked to the case, and granted before proceedings are instituted.
The court also expressed concern that the resolutions were signed by a party official who was personally implicated in the underlying disciplinary dispute, creating a conflict of interest. The judge noted that a non-conflicted official could have signed the resolutions, but this was not done, further weakening the CCC’s case.
With the application dismissed, the earlier ruling in Tshabangu’s favor remains in force. While the judgment reinforces the courts’ strict approach to internal party governance and legal authority, it leaves unresolved the wider political fallout within the CCC, including disputes over leadership legitimacy, disciplinary power, and control of parliamentary processes.
Leave Comments