Worshippers during a church service at Moru Congregation Church in Juba. Courtesy photo.

A court in Juba has dismissed a criminal case filed by the Episcopal Diocese of Juba against six members of the Moru Congregation over a long-running dispute involving church administration, worship and property.

The County Court in Juba dismissed Criminal Case No. 4071 of 2025 on August 18, 2026, discharging all six accused persons.

The case followed a dispute between the Diocese and the Moru Congregation, which has worshipped in Juba for decades.

According to the lawyers representing the accused, the Diocese claimed overarching authority over Anglican congregations and sought control of churches and properties used by the Moru Congregation.

The Moru Congregation, however, maintained that it had historical and legal rights over its places of worship.

Six of its members were charged under the South Sudan Penal Code Act, 2008, including Samson Lazoro, Solomon Gismalla, John Weasely, John Bismark, Stephen Lawrance and Canon Rev. Isaac Oneil Yosia Diama, the congregation’s leader.

The charges included common intention, insulting or inciting contempt of religious creed, disturbing a religious assembly and house trespass.

The accused were arrested between July and August 2025 while holding a meeting at the Munuki Moru Congregation Church, according to their lawyers.

The lawyers said the six were later taken to the joint operations headquarters in Nyakuron before being transferred to the Northern Division Police Station, where some were released on bail the following day.

Before the main hearing, the prosecution also sought a temporary injunction to close Moru Congregation churches and hand over possession to the Diocese.

The court rejected the application after the defence argued that an injunction should preserve the status quo rather than be used to remove the accused from properties before the case was heard.

The major legal challenge, however, concerned the Diocese’s capacity to bring the criminal case.

Lawyers Ezekiel Eresto and Swaka Clement argued that the Episcopal Diocese of Juba is an unincorporated association and does not have separate legal personality.

They told the court that the Diocese had failed to produce evidence of registration with a government authority or an Act of Parliament establishing it as a legal entity.

The lawyers argued that without legal personality, the Diocese lacked the legal capacity to institute proceedings in its own name.

The Diocese’s lawyers, according to the defence, relied on Articles 8(1) and 23 of the Transitional Constitution, which provide for religious freedom, assembly and property rights.

The defence maintained that constitutional rights do not automatically give an organisation legal personality.

In its ruling, the County Court found that the Episcopal Diocese of Juba is neither a creature of statute nor a registered entity and therefore lacked the procedural capacity to institute the criminal proceedings.

The court ruled that the preliminary objection was well-founded and dismissed all charges against the six accused.

The accused were discharged forthwith.

The court has given the Diocese 15 days to appeal the decision if it is dissatisfied with the ruling.

The defence lawyers have described the decision as a landmark ruling, saying it underscores the need for religious and community organisations to establish their legal status before accessing the courts.

They have also called on the Diocese to respect the ruling and pursue dialogue with the Moru Congregation.

“[We urge the Episcopal Diocese to reespect the ruling and pursue peaceful reconciliation with our clients. We also urge the Government of South Sudan to enact legislation clarifying the legal status of religious and community organisations. We further call on all unincorporated religious associations to register immediately with the Office of Religious Affairs in the Office of the President to secure legal capacity,” they said.

The Diocese has not been quoted responding to the ruling in the statement issued by the defence lawyers.