Nehanda Housing Co-operative Society and Others v Simba Moyo and Others

The first applicant was a registered housing co-operative. The second to sixth applicants formed the Management Committee of the first applicant, having been re-elected at an Annual General Meeting held on 27 September 2014. The first respondent had challenged this re-appointment in HC 9842/14, which was still pending. On 24-25 April 2015, an emergency Special General Meeting was called where a vote of no confidence was passed on the second to sixth applicants, and the first to fifth respondents were elected as the new management committee. The meeting was attended by 750 members. The applicants brought an urgent application seeking to be declared the legitimate management committee and to interdict the respondents from holding themselves out as management committee members or interfering with the first applicant's activities, including its bank accounts. Crucially, the applicants were aware of the emergency meeting but chose not to attend and failed to disclose this material fact to the court in their founding papers, instead claiming the respondents had unlawfully declared themselves the new management committee.

• Whether the applicants established a prima facie right to the interim interdict sought
• Whether the applicants were candid with the court and disclosed all material facts
• Whether the Special General Meeting of 25 April 2015 was properly constituted and had a quorum in terms of section 50 of the Co-operatives Act
• Whether all requirements for granting a temporary interdict were satisfied
• Whether there was an alternative remedy available to the applicants

The application was dismissed.

An applicant seeking interim relief must be candid with the court and disclose all material facts; failure to do so may result in the court refusing to proceed with the examination of the merits as an inherent power to protect itself and prevent abuse of process. For a temporary interdict to succeed, all of the following cumulative requirements must be satisfied: (1) a prima facie right (even if open to some doubt); (2) a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable injury; (3) the balance of convenience favouring the grant of the remedy; and (4) the absence of other adequate and ordinary remedy. Where a management committee of a co-operative has been removed by a vote of no confidence at a properly constituted general meeting, they no longer have a prima facie right to manage the affairs of the co-operative. Section 50 of the Co-operatives Act provides for a disjunctive quorum requirement: either 20 members/delegates qualified to vote OR one-quarter of the members/delegates qualified to vote, whichever is the lesser number.

The court observed that the applicants could seek nullification of the elections as an alternative remedy, suggesting this would be the appropriate course of action rather than seeking interim interdictory relief. The court also noted that there were multiple pending applications before the High Court relating to the governance of the co-operative (HC 9842/14, HC 2867/15, and HC 98842/14), indicating ongoing internal disputes within the co-operative that might be better resolved through the dispute resolution mechanisms provided for co-operatives, including reference to the Registrar.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean co-operative law and urgent applications jurisprudence for several reasons: (1) It reinforces the strict duty of candour owed by applicants to the court, particularly in ex parte and urgent applications, and the court's inherent power to refuse relief where material facts have been suppressed or distorted; (2) It provides guidance on the interpretation of section 50 of the Co-operatives Act regarding quorum requirements for general meetings, clarifying that the provision is disjunctive (either 20 members OR one-quarter of members, whichever is lesser); (3) It reiterates the well-established cumulative requirements for granting temporary interdicts, all of which must be satisfied; (4) It demonstrates that internal democratic processes of co-operatives (such as votes of no confidence) can effectively remove management committees and defeat claims to prima facie rights in interdict applications; and (5) It emphasizes that courts will not grant interim relief where alternative remedies (such as challenging the validity of elections) are available.