SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.18 issue1The Human Rights Council's Resolution on Maternal Mortality: Better late than never author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

    Related links

    • On index processCited by Google
    • On index processSimilars in Google

    Share


    African Human Rights Law Journal

    On-line version ISSN 1996-2096Print version ISSN 1609-073X

    Abstract

    MOYO, Admark. Standing, access to justice and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. Afr. hum. rights law j. [online]. 2018, vol.18, n.1, pp.266-292. ISSN 1996-2096.  https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2018/v18n1a13.

    This article argues that the liberalisation of locus standi, particularly the provisions of section 85(1) of the Zimbabwean Constitution, has magnified opportunities for access to justice and the rule of law in Zimbabwe. Liberalising standing allows a wide range of persons to approach the courts for personal relief or to vindicate the public interest. Furthermore, the Constitution also abolishes the 'dirty hands doctrine', a common law concept in terms of which a litigant lacks standing if he or she has not complied with the legislation the legality or constitutionality of which they are challenging. The new approach permits litigants to launch proceedings challenging the constitutionality of pieces of legislation that they allegedly have violated. More importantly, the provisions governing standing outline four principles with which court rules must comply. These principles are meant to ensure that the constitutional promises of access to justice and the rule of law are not thwarted by restrictive court rules at every level of the judicial system. In a way, the four principles allow courts to entertain as many cases as possible to ensure both that there is due respect for the rule of law and that the majority of litigants have access to both procedural and substantive justice. Finally, it is argued that the general ouster of the courts' jurisdiction in land-related legal claims undermines the concept of the rule of law and allows the state to violate property rights by grabbing land without either paying compensation or allowing the owners of such land to approach courts for redress.

    Keywords : standing; access to justice; rule of law; Zimbabwe.

            · text in English     · English ( pdf )