admin
Responding to a lawsuit filed by the cotton spinning company Scottco, seeking to recover the money lost to the central bank at the height of the economic meltdown in 2007, RBZ argues that it has no legal relationship with the company.
Scottco issued summons at the High Court seeking an order compelling the RBZ to return R1 455 667,12 and US$1 513,88 withdrawn from its MBCA Bank account in 2007.
It also wants another R1 168 432,46 and US$37,50 that was taken from another account at BancABC.
All the money should be returned with interest as prescribed by the law.
The two banks remitted the money to RBZ on 2 October, 2007 following a Monetary Policy Statement directing all corporates to surrender all the foreign currency to the Central Bank within 24 hours.
The statement was issued on 1 October, 2007.
RBZ and its governor Dr Gideon Gono and the two banks as defendants, deny liability in their papers filed at the same court.
“First (RBZ) and second (Dr Gono) defendants deny that they have an obligation to pay Plaintiff (Scottco) on demand as alleged as they have no legal relationship with the plaintiff from which liability can arise and neither has the alleged basis for liability been pleaded,” read part of the defendants plea.
The central bank and its governor further deny that they connived with the two banks to deprive Scottco of its monies.
They also deny that they issued any unlawful directives as alleged.
The directives issued, argue RBZ, were not in breach of the provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe as claimed by the cotton company.
“The first and second defendants never dealt with the plaintiff nor did they ever refer to plaintiff in issuing directives issued.
“The first defendant at all material times dealt with third defendant (MBCA Bank). There is no cause of action between plaintiff and the first and second defendant.”
The central bank said any liability sought to be imputed upon it and its governor was refuted.
MBCA Bank pleads that it was obliged to comply with the directive of the RBZ, which it did and notified its client (Scottco).
Apart from confirming that it transferred Scottco’s monies to RBZ, the bank does not accept that it is indebted to it.
It says the money is with the central bank, which had publicly confessed having used it for what it termed national interest.
“The third defendant pleads that it was obliged to obey the directive if same was made in terms of the valid and existing law,” said MBCA.
The bank further states: “The third defendant pleads that it is not indebted to the plaintiff or obliged to plaintiff to pay any amount claimed or at all.”
BancABC says it remitted Scottco monies to RBZ hence the obligation to settle the claim rests with the central bank.
“Fourth defendant admits having refused to pay on demand and avers that it is not indebted to plaintiff but first defendant is,” said BancABC.
“Upon issuing the directive, first defendant undertook to pay plaintiff on demand.”
The bank argues that after transferring the funds, RBZ assumed and created a contractual obligation to pay Scottco, which obligation was independent of BancABC.
In its lawsuit Scottco argues that it entered into agreements with MBCA and BancABC to keep the balances in the respective accounts on condition that they were payable on demand.
Although the two financial institutions acknowledged their indebtedness to Scottco they have, however, failed to pay back the money.
Dr Gono invoked provisions of the Exchange Control Regulations, Statutory Instrument 109 of 1996 to have foreign currency transferred to the central bank, which the firm argued was done without consent.
Scottco lawyer Mr Succeed Takundwa said the banks had a duty at law to disobey the instruction given by Dr Gono because it was clearly unlawful.
He argued that the Statutory Instrument used to issue instructions to take money from the corporate Zimbabwe citizens did not give RBZ powers to take people’s money without their consent.
Dr Gono, said Mr Takundwa, contravened provisions of the Constitution of Zimbabwe.
He accused the banks of failing to take a strong position to defend their clients.
Mr Takundwa said banks should have taken a strong position to defend their clients.
“The banks are at fault in failing to protect their clients. They exhibited extreme cowardice by obeying something clearly prohibited by the supreme law of the country,” he said.
This, Mr Takundwa said, deprived his client of its property in breach of the Constitution.
In terms of provisions of Section 16 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, all Zimbabwean citizens are protected from deprivation of their property.
Online Reporter