Community Water Alliance Trust v City of Harare and Others

The Community Water Alliance Trust, a trust established by deed of trust, brought an urgent chamber application against the City of Harare (a municipality established under the Urban Councils Act), the Minister of Local Government, Public Works and National Housing, the President of Zimbabwe, and the Minister of Environment, Water and Climate. On 23 September 2019, the City of Harare published a notice stating it was stopping water provision due to lack of chemicals to purify water. The applicant filed the urgent application on 25 September 2019, seeking a mandamus, prohibitory interdict, and declaratory orders relating to the water crisis in Harare. However, by 25 September 2019 (the same day the application was filed), water supply had already been restored by the first respondent on its own initiative. The applicant argued that despite the restoration, the respondents lacked capacity to continue supplying safe, clean and potable water in the future.

• Whether the application retained its urgent character after water supply was restored before the hearing
• Whether the court could grant relief based on speculation about future water supply failures
• Whether the matter had been overtaken by events

The point in limine was upheld. The application was removed from the roll of urgent matters on the basis that it had been overtaken by events.

An urgent application loses its urgent character and must be removed from the roll of urgent matters where the specific circumstances that gave rise to the urgency have been resolved before the hearing, even if filed when those circumstances existed. A court cannot grant urgent relief based on speculation about future potential violations or failures. Where relief is sought on an urgent basis, the urgency must be assessed based on current facts and circumstances at the time of the hearing, not on hypothetical future events. The restoration of the status quo ante by respondents on their own initiative, prior to or contemporaneous with the filing of an application, removes the foundation for urgent relief.

The court acknowledged that water is "the source of all life on earth" and is required for human needs, sanitation services, direct personal consumption, household hygiene, food preparation and household cleaning. The court also implicitly recognized that the water crisis in Harare had been ongoing for some time before the notice to shut down was issued. The court suggested that if the respondents fail to provide continuous safe, clean and potable water to residents in the future, "that will be an argument for another day," indicating that fresh proceedings could be brought if actual (rather than speculative) failures occur. This suggests the court was not dismissing the merits of the constitutional claims, only their suitability for urgent treatment in the circumstances presented.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean jurisprudence as it demonstrates the court's approach to urgency in constitutional matters involving socio-economic rights, particularly the right to water under section 77 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe. While the court acknowledged the fundamental importance of water rights (linked to rights to life, health, human dignity, and food), it established that urgency must be assessed based on current circumstances rather than speculative future events. The case illustrates that even where constitutional rights of significant importance are at stake, procedural requirements regarding urgency must still be satisfied. It also shows that courts will not grant urgent relief where the precipitating circumstances have been resolved by the time of the hearing, even if underlying systemic issues may persist.