THE recent Supreme Court’s decision against BancABC which led to the attachment of the latter’s property over a $10 million debt saga has seen the bank raising a constitutional challenge that is set to open floodgates for other litigants in challenging the Supreme Courts’ ruling by raising issues of constitutional matters.
Report by Charles Laiton
The application by BancABC contesting the Supreme Court’s decision becomes the first of its kind in this country where the last court of appeal’s decisions havebeen challenged.
BancABC, whose property was attached by the Deputy Sheriff over its debt against Mackey Diamonds, filed an urgent application at the Constitutional Court (Concourt) early this week.
In the notice and grounds of appeal the bank said: “Take notice that in terms of section 167 (1) (a) and (c) as read together with section 167 (5) (b) as further read together with section 169 (1) of the Constitution of Zimbabwe, appellant appeals against the whole judgment of the Supreme Court of Zimbabwe.”
This application is also set to see more judges from the High Court being incorporated into the Concourt where they will review their senior counterpart’s determination.
The bank’s application will, however, see a change in the court’s composition given that the judges who heard the Supreme Court matter would not be eligible to sit in the Concourt to review their own judgment.
The Concourt, which is presided over by nine Supreme Court judges would preside over the application without Justice Vernanda Ziyambi, Justice Paddington Garwe and Justice Anne-Mary Gowora who dealt with the BancABC appeal matter.
- Chamisa under fire over US$120K donation
- Mavhunga puts DeMbare into Chibuku quarterfinals
- Pension funds bet on Cabora Bassa oilfields
- Councils defy govt fire tender directive
Keep Reading
The judgment, in favour of Mackey Diamonds, was handed down on June 4 after having been granted by Supreme Court judge Justice Ziyambi and concurred by Justice Garwe and Justice Gowora under case number SC22/13.
BancABC claims the judgment raises certain constitutional issues, hence an appeal to the Constitutional Court.
The bank is represented by Advocate Thabani Mpofu.
