Some bishops of the Glory of Christ Tanzania Church at the High Court, Dodoma Zone, during the hearing of a case challenging the church’s deregistration. PHOTO | COURTESY
Dodoma. The High Court has rejected a request by the Glory of Christ Tanzania Church, led by Kawe MP Bishop Josephat Gwajima, to block a government decision revoking its registration—citing a name discrepancy as the key reason.
The church had sought a temporary injunction under a certificate of urgency, challenging a letter allegedly issued by the Registrar of Civil Societies that annulled its registration.
Alternatively, the church sought an order to maintain its operations as they were before the alleged deregistration (status quo ante) while its appeal against the Registrar’s decision was under consideration.
It argued that no official notice of deregistration had been served.
However, in a ruling issued on Friday, June 13, 2025, Judge Juliana Masabo dismissed the application, stating that it was unclear whether the church mentioned in the deregistration letter was indeed the applicant.
While the church that filed the case is formally registered as the Glory of Christ Tanzania Church, the deregistration letter circulating online referred to the Glory of Christ Church—a materially different name, according to the court.
The church, owned by Bishop Gwajima through its Board of Trustees, filed Civil Case No. 13189 of 2025 against the Registrar of Civil Societies (first respondent), the Attorney General, and the Inspector General of Police (IGP).
The church claimed that its operations, including a seven-day national prayer and fasting session launched on June 1, 2025, had been disrupted by police acting on the Registrar’s directive. Some members were also arrested.
On June 3, Dar es Salaam Special Zone Police Commander Jumanne Muliro advised the church to file an appeal with the Minister for Home Affairs if it was dissatisfied with the deregistration decision. The church did so and simultaneously filed a case in court.
Legal arguments
Representing the church, advocate Peter Kibatala asked the court to accept Mr Bryson Lema’s affidavit and said the actions of the IGP, who acted on the deregistration letter, were threatening the church’s existence and constitutional rights.
He warned that the ongoing uncertainty could lead to financial institutions freezing the church’s accounts, affecting its obligations, including tax payments, staff salaries, and social security contributions.
Advocate Kibatala insisted that the disputed letter had not been officially served to the church and that the document was neither signed nor addressed to the Glory of Christ Tanzania Church, which made its enforcement legally questionable.
He argued that the respondents were punishing the church without due process and asked the court to restrain further enforcement of the Registrar’s decision pending the outcome of the appeal.
Government’s response
Senior State Attorney Narindwa Sekimanga, assisted by Eric Rumisha and Kumbukeni Kiondo, represented the government.
They opposed the application, arguing that the contested letter did not name the applicant and therefore lacked legal effect.
Mr Rumisha noted that the unsigned letter was never formally served and could not be considered a valid government decision.
As such, the church’s request for an injunction or a return to the previous state of affairs lacked legal grounding.
Court’s decision
In her analysis, Judge Masabo said the difference in names was not contested by the applicant, indicating that the church mentioned in the deregistration letter was not the one before the court.
She cited parts of the applicant’s affidavit and pleadings, which acknowledged that the letter referred to the Glory of Christ Church, not the Glory of Christ Tanzania Church.
The judge concluded that, since the letter was unsigned and never formally served, it could not be treated as an official government order affecting the applicant.
Therefore, there was no legal basis for the court to grant an injunction.
Regarding the alternative prayer to maintain the church’s operations, Judge Masabo said this could not be granted either.
She explained that it amounted to asking the court to reverse a decision which, in legal terms, had not officially occurred.
She also declined to address claims against the IGP’s conduct, saying the matter before her focused solely on the legal status of the church’s registration—not enforcement actions.
