Cortman Investments (Private) Limited v Marondera Town Council and Others

Cortman Investments (Pvt) Ltd brought an application seeking declaratory and interdictory relief against Marondera Town Council (first respondent), the Minister of Transport and Infrastructural Development (second respondent), and the Minister of Local Government and Public Works (third respondent). The applicant alleged that the first respondent's sale of certain stands in Marondera was unlawful and ultra vires the provisions of the Roads Act [Chapter 13:18], the Regional Town and Country Planning Act [Chapter 29:12], and the Urban Councils Act [Chapter 29:15]. The applicant sought a declaration to this effect and an interdict to stop the disposition or transfer of the stands. The applicant neither owned nor occupied the stands in question and presented no evidence of participation in or prejudice from the sale.

• Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the application, specifically whether it had a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter
• Whether the applicant established the requirements for final interdictory relief, namely: (i) a clear or definite right; (ii) an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; and (iii) the absence of a suitable alternative remedy
• Whether the sale of stands by Marondera Town Council was ultra vires the Roads Act, Regional Town and Country Planning Act, and Urban Councils Act

The application was dismissed with costs on the ordinary scale awarded to the respondents.

To establish locus standi for a declaratory order under section 14 of the High Court Act, an applicant must be an 'interested person' with a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter that could be prejudicially affected by the court's judgment. The interest must concern an existing, future, or contingent right. For final interdictory relief, an applicant must establish: (i) a clear or definite right; (ii) an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; and (iii) the absence of a suitable alternative remedy. A general assertion of illegality, without demonstrating how one's own rights are infringed, is insufficient to ground either declaratory or interdictory relief. To establish that a local authority acted ultra vires statutory provisions, an applicant must identify specific statutory sections violated and provide evidence that lawful procedures were not followed.

The court observed that the Roads Act governs the proclamation and management of roads, and would require showing that stands were on a road or road reserve requiring ministerial authority to alienate. Under the Urban Councils Act, local authorities are generally empowered to dispose of council land provided certain procedures (such as Council resolutions or approvals) are followed. The court noted that courts of law decide matters on evidence and clear legal principles, not on speculative or uninformed interpretations of statutes, and will not issue declaratory or interdictory relief in a factual vacuum or at the instance of a party with no real stake in the matter.

This case reinforces the strict requirements for locus standi in declaratory relief applications in Zimbabwean law, emphasizing that applicants must demonstrate a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter rather than relying on general assertions of illegality or public interest. It also clarifies the high evidentiary burden required to establish ultra vires conduct by local authorities, particularly the need to identify specific statutory violations and demonstrate how prescribed procedures were not followed. The judgment serves as a reminder that courts will not intervene in local government decisions absent clear evidence of illegality and that speculative or uninformed statutory interpretations are insufficient grounds for relief.