A LOCAL insurance firm has taken the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) to court over its cash seized by the central bank from an account held with Barclays Bank of Zimbabwe five years ago.
CHARLES LAITON
Motor Insurance Pool of Zimbabwe filed a R1 723 353 and P46 492 claim at the High Court under case number HC4331/10, against RBZ and Barclays after efforts to recover the cash failed.
In the court papers, Barclays Bank is cited as the first respondent and RBZ as the second respondent respectively.
The matter was on Tuesday postponed indefinitely by High Court judge Justice Felistus Chatukuta after it emerged there were other cases of the same nature still to be heard on appeal in the Supreme Court.
According to Motor Insurance, sometime in June 2008, Barclays Bank transferred the cash to the RBZ, which in turn allegedly converted it to its own use.
“Despite demands, the defendants have failed, refused or neglected to repay the said balances to the plaintiff,” the firm said in its summons.
However, Barclays Bank defended its position on the matter arguing it had acted according to the RBZ’s directive.
- 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 first defendant (Barclays Bank) has no knowledge of the allegations that the second respondent (RBZ) converted the balance in question to its own use and avers that after the said transfer, other than retaining ‘mirror’ accounts in accordance with the terms and conditions of the directive aforesaid, lost physical control of the funds in question,” Motor Insurance said in its heads of arguments.
“The first defendant effected the transfer aforesaid in compliance with a lawful directive to it, namely directive number R1:303 dully issued by the second defendant in the exercise of the second defendant’s statutory powers as prescribed by the exchange control regulations.”
The RBZ also defended its position arguing the Motor Insurance summons should be dismissed for failure to comply with Section 6 of the State Liabilities Act.
