Bethlehem Missionary Baptist Church (BMBC), an unincorporated congregationalist church, does not have any by-laws or a constitution. When a dispute arose among church members regarding who should serve as the pastor, Deacon Robert Barton and others (Appellees) filed suit, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Reverend Willie Bolden and his supporters (Appellants). After conducting a hearing, the trial court ordered an election to determine whether Reverend Bolden should continue as the church’s pastor. A list of those BMBC members eligible to vote in the election was compiled by the parties based upon criteria established by the trial court. Appellants filed an appeal from the trial court’s order, which is directly appealable as the grant of mandatory injunctive relief. OCGA§ 5-6-34 (a) (4);
Bruce v. Wallis,
1. Appellants contend that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to address the dispute. “[T]he jurisdiction of the court to entertain the complaint, as well as the theory upon which relief is sought, are matters dependent upon the main and material allegations of the pleadings.”
Owens v. Cobb County,
*831 “[a] court of equity will not interfere with the internal affairs of a religious organization, when no property rights are involved; for the reason that civil courts have no jurisdiction of such matters and cannot take jurisdiction of them. . . .” [Cits.]
*832
“When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings.” OCGA § 9-11-15 (b). Notwithstanding the trial court’s order, a review of the transcript of the hearing held in this case does not show any evidence to authorize a finding that the dispute over the pastorate directly impacts control over the property of the church. Instead, it appears that Appellees and the trial court have proceeded on the assumption that the disagreement between the factions over Reverend Bolden’s status implicitly implicates control over church property and, thus, is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the judiciary to resolve the controversy. However, an allegation of the existence of a dispute over who should be the pastor, without more, does not confer jurisdiction on the courts to address and rule on the matter. See
Knowles v. White,
Accordingly, on the record before us, the trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the case and in ordering an election, thereby “interfering] with this internal affair of a religious organization. [Cits.]”
Knowles v. White,
supra. See
siso Edwards v. Thomas,
Appellants did not raise any objection to jurisdiction below, but “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction has a unique attribute. It can
never
be waived.” (Emphasis in original.)
McLanahan v. Keith,
2. Remaining enumerations of error are moot.
Judgment reversed.