Andrew
Legal Matters With Arthur Marara
One day someone asked me, “Do you actually study Latin at Law School?” This is the question that is in the minds of many people when you encounter some Latin terms.
Latin is not offered as a course at the law school I learnt. One thing that is certain is you will meet these Latin terms a lot in some Court decisions, pleadings, and texts due to the origins of our current legal system. That is a topic on its own for another day. However, you need to have a basic understanding of some of these concepts so that you are able to read through court documents, advise notes.
Last week we discussed about the concept of “res judicata”, what it means and entails. This week we want to look at another concept which determines whether or not you will be heard before the Courts on a particular matter, “locus standi”. This is one of the favorite terms by lawyers at a preliminary level try to upset a case brought against them. What is it about? Let us dig in.
For a person to bring proceedings they must have a sufficient personal interest in the matter concerned. Normally only a person who has a direct, personal interest in the remedy being sought has locus standi to seek that remedy in court.
The personal interest that a person may have that will provide the basis for legal standing can be that the action will affect interests such as personal liberty, money or property or benefits or legitimate expectation of benefits, [see Patz v Greene & Co 1907 TS 427; Adler v Salisbury City Council 1947 (2) SA 220 (SR); Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors 2001 (1) ZLR 321 (H) – the High Court judgment) and Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing & Ors 2002 (1) ZLR 498 (S) – the Supreme Court judgment).
Etymology
At an elementary level Locus Standi focuses on the competence of a plaintiff to assert the matter of their complaint before the court. Let us do a bit of etymology. The term “Locus standi” is made up of two words, “locus” and “standi”. The word ‘Locus’ is a Latin which means a place or position where something is done or exists. I was never a fan of mathematics but there was a subject during our days called “locus”. “Standi” is a Latin word which means “place of standing”. When used as a phrase locus standi speaks to the right to right of a party to bring an action or be heard in a given action. In simple terms locus standi means legal standing.
What is “locus standi”
Locus Standi is concerned with existence of a right an individual, entities or of a group of people to bring an action before a court of law. In the other article we discussed about “legal personality”.
What this means is that once it is satisfied that a party has legal personality and that they can sue or be sued in their own name, the next question is that of locus standi. Does that party have the locus standi to actually bring the proceedings. It also means before citing a party to the proceedings you need to ask yourself if that party has the necessary locus standi to be part of the proceedings.
Before approaching the Court, that is the first thing that you need to satisfy yourself, whether or not you have the necessary locus standi. A court does not grant locus standi. It’s either you have it or you do not. Locus standi is a matter of law. “The principle of locus standi is concerned with the relationship between the cause of action and the relief sought. Once a party establishes that there is a cause of action and that he/she is entitled to the relief sought, he or she has locus standi.” (per Malaba DCJ (as he then was) in Allied Bank v Dengu SC52/2016).
The Plaintiff or Applicant only has to show that he or she has direct and substantial interest in the right which is the subject-matter of the cause of action. In the case of Ndlovu v Marufu HH-480-15, the court had the following to say concerning the concept of locus standi:
“It is trite that locus standi exists when there is direct and substantial interest in the right which is the subject matter of the litigation and the outcome thereof. A person who has locus standi has a right to sue which is derived from the legal interest recognised by the law.
“In the case of Stevenson v Minister of Local Government and National Housing and Ors SC 38-02, the court in outlining locus standi in judio stated that in many cases the requisite interest or special reason entitling a party to bring legal proceedings has been described as “a real and substantial interest” or as a direct and substantial interest.”
In Makarudze & Anor v Bungu & Ors 2015 (1) ZLR 15 (H) the court pointed out that locus standi in judicio refers to ones right, ability or capacity to bring legal proceedings in a court of law. One must justify such right by showing that one has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation. Such an interest is a legal in the subject-matter of the action which could be prejudicially affected by the judgment of the court.
The court will be slow to deny locus standi to a litigant who seriously alleges that a state of affairs exists, within the court’s area of jurisdiction, where someone in a position of authority, power or influence abuses that position to the detriment of their members or followers. In this case the Plaintiffs undoubtedly had a direct and substantial interest in the management of the affairs of the union.
In order for you to demonstrate locus standi, you must show that you are affected or likely to be affected or aggrieved by the proceeding in the suit. You should not just have an interest, it has to be real and substantial interest in the matter.
What constitute sufficient interest will depend on the facts of each case. Judge Megarry J. in Re Argentum Reductions (UK) Limited 1975 1 WLR 186, at pg 190 held that ‘the courts are not places for those who wish to meddle in things which are no concern of theirs, just for the pleasure of interfering or of proclaiming abroad some favourable doctrine of theirs, or of indulging a taste of forensic display’
Locus Standi thus acts as a limitation to frivolous litigation, abuse of court processes and a waste of the Court’s precious time. The doctrine seeks to exclude characters that have no interest at state in a matter from meddling with it.
The principle further seeks to protect a legal system from being unnecessarily being inundated and overwhelmed by pieces of litigations half of which are superficial and artificial. Consequently, courts have ample time to concentrate on matters of relevance and importance brought before them.
The locus standi principle is founded upon the public policy considerations that mere busy bodies or meddlesome interlopers interfering in the affairs of others should be discouraged. In the absence of such controls, there are floodgates that can open from every corner especially from people who have no their interest in the matter or the outcome in a sense.
Origin Of the doctrine
The doctrine has a long history. In England, during the 19th Century, Courts were reluctant to allow anyone gain entry into its sanctuary unless they were the aggrieved person, and that he had a specific legal right of his own which has been infringed or that his properties have been wrongfully seized or detained, to be entitled to a hearing this right must not be a right he shares with others in common, he must be a ‘’person aggrieved’’.
The principle of Locus Standi was laid down in the 19th century. distinguished English Judge Lord Justice James, laid down the principle in 1880 in the EX P. SIDEBOTHAM [1880] 14 CH D 458 at 463 in which he defined the concept of ‘person aggrieved’ in the English Bankruptcy Act. He held that a ’person aggrieved‘ is not a man who is disappointed of a benefit which he might have received if some other order had been made, but a man who has suffered a legal grievance, a man against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him something, or wrongfully refused him something, or wrongfully affected his title to something’
In the earlier cited case Lord Justice James was dealing with an appeal by the insolvent where the court had refused to act on the comptroller’s report. He observed that ‘the appellant has suffered no grievance, he had hardly sustained even a “damnum’’ the appellant was entitled to apply to the first court and make out his own case against the trustee but he had nothing to do with the comptroller’s report.
This decision became the leading case on Locus Standi in England. The position was later altered due to direct attacks on this restrictive approach starting from Lord Denning who challenged the doctrine of locus standi towards the end of the 20th century in England. There
In a series of cases known as the Blackburn cases there was a shift in terms of the approach to the locus standi [See: R V Commissioner of Police, Ex parte Blackburn, (1968) 2 QB 118; Blackburn V Attorney-General (1971) 1WLR 1037; R V Police Commissioner, Ex parte Blackburn, (1973) QB 241; R V GLC, Ex parte Blackburn, (1976) 1WLR 550]
In the 1970s, Mr, Raymond Blackburn, once a member of parliament came to the court with four successive cases with issues not of his own but involving the general public. In each of these cases, it came to be established that anyone having a ‘sufficient interest’ in the matter in hand acquires locus standi. Lord Denning reacted to the Blackburn cases, by stating that:
‘If Blackburn had no sufficient interest, no other citizens had and, in that event,, no one would be able to bring an action for enforcing the law and transgression of the law would continue un-abated.’
Also, in Arsenal Football Club v Ende (1977) 2WLR 974 the House of Lords approved the above finding of Lord Denning. The House of Lords gradually shifted away from the traditional restrictive standing doctrine, but a close look at some of the leading English decisions of the early eighties would show that the position in England as regards the standing doctrine was in a way confusing. This was due to the failure to adopt a clear view as to what the phrases ‘ person aggrieved’ or ‘sufficient interest actually meant.’’
In R. v. Felixstone (1987) QB 583, the court held that a journalist had the Locus to demand to know the names of magistrates on a particular matter despite the security reasons adduced as reason for not revealing such names. In another case, R V Inspectorate of pollution Exparte Green Peace (N02) (1994) 4 ALL ER 328, the court allowed Greenpeace (an organisation) to challenge British Nuclear Fuel’s decision to test its new Thermal oxide reprocessing plant at Sellafield, Cumbria. In doing so, the court placed particular reliance on the fact that Greenpeace was a highly respected and responsible environmental organisation which could mount a more focused challenge than an individual.
LEGAL DISCLAIMER: The material contained in this post is set out in good faith for general guidance in the spirit of raising legal awareness on topical interests that affect most people on a daily basis. They are not meant to create an attorney-client relationship or constitute solicitation. No liability can be accepted for loss or expense incurred as a result of relying in particular circumstances on statements made in the article/post. Laws and regulations are complex and liable to change, and readers should check the current position with the relevant authorities before making personal arrangements.
Arthur Marara is a corporate law attorney practicing law in Harare, Zimbabwe. He is also a notary public and conveyancer. He is also passionate about labour law, commercial, and family law and promoting legal awareness and access to justice. He writes in his personal capacity. You can follow him on social media (Facebook Attorney Arthur Marara), or WhatsApp him on +263780055152 or email [email protected]
Online Reporter