The applicants brought an urgent application seeking an interim interdict against the respondents. The respondents raised points in limine challenging the applicants' locus standi, arguing that the applicants did not have a real right to justify their action and were merely holders of personal rights. The respondents contended that without a real right, the applicants were incapacitated from initiating an action for interim relief. The applicants argued that their rights were under siege and they were entitled to bring the urgent application for the benefit of all parties involved.
The points in limine raised by the respondents were dismissed. The court directed that the case be considered on the merits.
An applicant for an interim interdict is not required to establish the existence of a real right. The requirements for granting interim interdictory relief are: (1) the right which the applicant seeks to protect must be clear or prima facie established though open to some doubt; (2) if the right is only prima facie established, there must be a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the interim interdict is not granted and the applicant ultimately succeeds; (3) the balance of inconvenience must favour granting interim relief; and (4) the applicant must have no other satisfactory remedy.
The court made strong observations about the professional conduct expected of legal practitioners. Bere J emphasized that legal practitioners, as officers of the court, have concomitant duties to both the court and their clients, and should not engage in unprofessional conduct or attempt to obtain favorable decisions 'by hook or crook'. The court noted that such conduct has only short-lived benefits and does not add value to a legal practitioner's stature. The court also observed that the practice of law is not a question of guesswork but must be rooted in well-established legal principles.
This case reinforces the established principles governing interim interdictory relief in Zimbabwean law (which follows South African law principles). It clarifies that applicants for interim interdicts need not establish a real right, but must satisfy the four well-established requirements for interim relief. The case also serves as a reminder to legal practitioners of their duties to the court and warns against raising frivolous preliminary points designed to mislead the court.