JUSTICE IN ZIMBABWE 68 ____________________________________________________________________ In his notice of opposition one of the respondents, the Deputy Chairperson of the commission appointed by the Minister, raised an objection to the legal standing of the applicant. At the hearing two of the respondents agreed that the matter of legal standing should be put in issue after it had been raised by the judge. At the hearing the judge questioned the exact capacity in which the applicant wished to be heard. He queried whether it was in her individual capacity as a resident and voter, as a Member of Parliament, as a representative of her political party or as a representative of the Harare residents. He observed that in the pleadings there were “contradictory or incomplete assertions” in relation to standing. This raised “a unique problem different from the usual ones of outright lack of standing.” The result of the badly formulated pleadings was that “although the applicant could have had standing on the basis of any of the grounds she avers, she, for some strange reason not apparent on the papers, fails to make the necessary averments that would entitle her to be heard in any of the capacities.” In regard to the various possible grounds upon which the applicant might have had legal standing the court found as follows: Personal injury: If the basis of her claim to legal standing was a violation of a direct, personal interest, she had failed to allege this in her founding affidavit. This was fatal to this basis of the action and a litigant’s case stands or falls on the basis of the founding affidavit and the facts alleged therein. In her affidavit she had not alleged any personal injury to herself entitling her to the relief sought. Ratepayer: Although a ratepayer automatically has legal standing to challenge the legality of action taken by his or her local authority without having to prove injury, in the present application the challenge was not to the legality of action taken by the local authority. Instead it was a challenge to a policy decision taken by central government in the form of the decision by the Minister of Local Government to install and retain a non-elected local authority. Rule in Patz v Greene: Where legislation is enacted in the special interest of a particular individual or class of person, that individual or a member of that class who