Shabir Omar and Aisha Omar v Jamila Omar and The Sheriff of Zimbabwe

The first applicant (Shabir Omar) had previously been granted an eviction order in favour of the first respondent (Jamila Omar). The first applicant's appeal against the eviction order lapsed, and an application for reinstatement of the appeal was pending before the Supreme Court. Execution was pending. The second applicant (Aisha Omar), who claimed to be the first applicant's wife, filed an urgent application for stay of execution in both her name and the first applicant's name. She deposed to the founding affidavit herself. The first applicant did not file a founding affidavit, did not give anyone power of attorney to represent him, and was not in the country at the time. The second applicant was not a party to the original eviction proceedings nor to the lapsed appeal.

• Whether the second applicant had locus standi to bring an application for stay of execution when she was not a party to the original eviction proceedings or the appeal
• Whether a person can bring an application on behalf of another person without being authorized to do so through power of attorney
• Whether a person who was not party to completed litigation can interfere with such litigation

The applicants' application was dismissed with costs.

A party who was not involved in original litigation does not have locus standi to bring an application relating to that litigation, even if claiming to have an interest in the outcome. A person cannot bring a legal application on behalf of another person without proper authorization through power of attorney. Being a spouse of a party to litigation does not, without more, confer locus standi to intervene in or bring applications related to that litigation.

The court observed that the second applicant could have obtained a power of attorney from her husband and sued in his name as a proper way to involve herself in the proceedings. The court also noted that the second applicant mounted the application because the first applicant was not in the country at the time.

This case reinforces important principles regarding locus standi in Zimbabwean civil procedure, particularly: (1) the requirement that a person must be authorized through proper power of attorney to represent another party in legal proceedings; (2) that parties who were not involved in original litigation cannot subsequently interfere with that litigation merely by claiming an interest in the outcome; and (3) that being a spouse of a party does not automatically confer standing to bring applications on behalf of or alongside that party. The case emphasizes the importance of proper party representation and the limitations on third-party intervention in existing litigation.