SUSPENDED securities firm Remo Investment Brokers have appealed to the Supreme Court to have its cancelled operating license returned arguing it was illegally revoked.
REPORT BY CHARLES LAITON
Advocate Firoz Girach instructed by Jonathan Samkange told the court on Monday that Remo’s license was unprocedurally cancelled by the Security Commission of Zimbabwe (Secz) following unsubstantiated claims.
Remos’ operating license was cancelled last year following allegations that the investment broking firm had engaged in money market activities, and used clients’ shares to secure its borrowings from Interfin, an accusation the firm challenged.
Advocate Thabani Mpofu, who represented Secz, however, maintained the cancellation of the licence was above board and urged the court to rule in his client’s favour.
Girach said on various occasions during 2010 and 2011, Remo borrowed cash from Interfin and in order to secure such borrowings provided Interfin with security in the form of shares.
In February last year, Girach said Remo came to know that the Interfin group was in financial difficulties and duly repaid the balance of the cash it owed to Interfin and demanded the return of the shares that had been furnished as security.
But Interfin allegedly kept promising and failed to do so. Later Interfin advised Remo that it had sold the shares and was thus unable to return the security, notwithstanding the fact that the cash borrowed had been repaid in full.
- 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
“Remo properly reported the matter to the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (ZSE) seeking its and Secz’s intervention. Secz for reasons that still remain unclear proceeded to suspend both Remo and Interfin from trading on the Zimbabwe Stock Exchange,” Girach argued.
He further said after investigation, the ZSE exonerated Remo of any wrongdoing and sent a letter to Secz confirming the exoneration, but again for reasons that remained unclear, it was dissatisfied with the acquittal and proceeded to engage Proctor and Associates to investigate.
Girach told the court that Remo consistently pointed out in its response that Proctor and Associates had no stockbroking experience, were incompetent, biased, and that large volumes of evidence availed to them were ignored.
He urged Justices Paddington Garwe, Anne-Mary Gowora and Barat Patel to rule in his client’s favour. Judgment in the matter was reserved.
