Zimbabwe High Court: Zhuomu International Contests Glen Lorne Wetland Dispute

• Chinese developer Zhuomu International is challenging an urgent High Court application by 26 Glen Lorne residents seeking to halt construction on a disputed wetland.
• An interim order temporarily stopped works on the 9.2-hectare property, where Zhuomu plans 89 cluster housing units, pending further legal determination.
• Zhuomu argues the residents lack standing, the case is premature, and the registered owner, Wu Jing, was improperly omitted from the proceedings, constituting a fatal non-joinder.
• The developer asserts it holds all necessary permits, including an EMA EIA certificate valid until 2028, and disputes claims of encroaching on restricted wetland areas without technical evidence.
• The case underscores the importance of procedural correctness and the need for concrete technical evidence in environmental disputes within Zimbabwe.

The developer's robust defense underscores the critical role of procedural compliance and the necessity for concrete technical evidence in environmental litigation within Zimbabwe.

A Chinese-owned property developer, Zhuomu International (Private) Limited, is vigorously contesting an urgent application filed in the Zimbabwe High Court by 26 residents of Glen Lorne. The residents are seeking to permanently halt construction activities on a wetland area, alleging encroachment into a restricted zone. This legal battle centers on Stand 4717 Glen Lorne Township, a 9.2-hectare property where Zhuomu International plans to develop 89 cluster housing units.

Earlier this week, Justice Samuel Deme issued an interim order by consent, temporarily stopping all works in the disputed area. This pause was intended to allow for further determination of the matter and to explore possibilities for an out-of-court settlement. However, Zhuomu International, through its director Wu Jing, has since filed an opposing affidavit, launching a comprehensive challenge to the residents' application and asserting that all operations have been conducted lawfully and with proper authorization.

The residents, led by prominent businessman Shingai Mutasa, initiated the High Court proceedings claiming that ongoing construction, including the erection of a perimeter wall, trenching, and grading, had extended into an area explicitly excluded from development under the project's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) certificate. Zhuomu International, represented by Madzima Chidyausiku Museta (MCM) Legal, disputes these allegations, maintaining that no works have occurred within any restricted zones.

Zhuomu International's opposition, articulated by its director Wu Jing, raises several critical legal and procedural arguments. The developer contends that the residents' application is premature and lacks the necessary urgency, pointing out that the applicants were aware of development activities as early as July. Wu Jing cited an environmental expert, Dr. Rob Cunliffe, who reportedly observed grading, clearing, fencing, earth-moving machinery, and drilled boreholes on the property on July 9, questioning why legal action was not pursued earlier.

Furthermore, Zhuomu International challenges the residents' standing, or *locus standi*, to bring the case. The developer argues that the applicants have failed to adequately demonstrate a personal, direct, and substantial interest in the matter, noting their omission to disclose specific addresses, identify their properties, or prove their proximity to the disputed site. A significant procedural defense also centers on the non-joinder of the property's registered owner; Wu Jing asserts that he personally owns the property and that his exclusion from the proceedings is a fatal defect, as any relief granted would directly impact his property and the approvals issued in his name, distinct from his role as a company director.

The developer's defense heavily relies on the validity of its permits and approvals. Wu Jing confirmed that the Environmental Management Agency (EMA) issued an EIA certificate on May 6, valid until May 6, 2028, which permits housing development under specific conditions, including confining the project to a designated non-wetland area. While Zhuomu accepts this condition, it disputes any breach, insisting that the residents have not provided reliable technical evidence, such as a survey, to substantiate their claims of activities outside the permitted zone. Additionally, the City of Harare issued a development permit on July 2, authorizing the construction of the perimeter wall, and approved Building Plan No. 19682, further bolstering the developer's claim of lawful operation.

This ongoing Zimbabwe High Court environmental dispute highlights significant procedural and substantive considerations for developers and environmental advocates alike. The developer's robust defense underscores the critical role of procedural compliance and the necessity for concrete technical evidence in environmental litigation within Zimbabwe. Arguments concerning *locus standi* and non-joinder, particularly when the registered owner has a distinct personal interest, can pose substantial hurdles for urgent applications challenging development projects.

The case also emphasizes the importance of developers securing and meticulously adhering to all required permits, including the Zhuomu International EIA certificate, and being prepared to demonstrate such compliance with detailed documentation. For legal practitioners advising on project approvals or challenging environmental impacts, this dispute illustrates the need for thorough preparation, including obtaining expert technical assessments and ensuring all relevant parties are properly joined in legal proceedings. The developer's insistence on technical proof to substantiate claims of environmental damage sets a precedent for the level of evidence required in such challenges, moving beyond general assertions to demand verifiable data.

This case illustrates the procedural hurdles and substantive defenses (e.g., locus standi, non-joinder, valid permits, EIA compliance) developers face when challenged on environmental grounds in Zimbabwe, offering insights for litigators and those advising on project approvals. Lawyers should note the emphasis on technical evidence and proper party joinder in urgent applications.

Source: Original reporting via independent media