The judge ruled yesterday that Synohydro had failed to demonstrate in its originating papers that it has the right to stand before the court and that as such the proceedings are invalid. She therefore set aside Synohydro's review application and all three interlocutory applications filed by the Chinese company. She ordered Synohydro to pay costs in respect of all the proceedings. The ruling comes less than two weeks after the government dropped Sinohydro as the contractor in the Sir Seretse Khama International Airport expansion. In yesterday's case, Garekwe said Synohydro's explanation during submissions does not cure the lack of particularity in its founding papers as demanded by the rules of court and case law. She said Synohydro's status was complicated further by the indication in the joint venture agreement that it is governed by Swiss laws. "This made it even more compelling for the applicant to demonstrate in its originating papers its capacity and authority to bring the present proceedings," the judge said.
She noted that: "What is obvious when one reads the founding papers is that the applicant is a joint venture and therefore an unincorporated entity which does not have legal standing. Without applicant affording the court, through demonstration, that despite its unincorporated status it does have legal standing to sue and be sued conferred by something, the court and indeed the parties sued can only assume that it lacks capacity to sue". She said the legal standing (locus standi) requirement seeks to prevent abuse of court process by litigants who have no business in moving court. "Our courts would otherwise be flooded with unending and or superfluous litigation from persons who have no business standing before a court of law, suing people they should not be suing," she emphasised.
