REITZ v STANDARD CHARTERED BANK ZIMBABWE LTD & ANOR 2016 (2) ZLR 412 (H)

Flynote

Practice and procedure: " parties " joinder " failure to join " action brought c against wrong party " effect

Headnote

The applicant was immigrating to America to set up a business. He filed an urgent chamber application seeking to compel the first respondent, his bank, to transfer his funds to America. The funds were held in trust by the second respondent, a firm of legal practitioners, in an account with the bank. Approval to remit the funds was received from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ). The law firm, on receipt of confirmation from the bank that the RBZ had given authority to remit the funds, contacted the bank in regard to the payment. The bank immediately wrote to the RBZ indicating that it had insufficient funds from its allocation to make the payment and requested the requisite funds from RBZ's Allocation Committee. The RBZ responded to indicate that the application had been referred to the Financial Markets Division for consideration.

The applicant was immigrating to America to set up a business. He filed an urgent chamber application seeking to compel the first respondent, his bank, to transfer his funds to America. The funds were held in trust by the second respondent, a firm of legal practitioners, in an account with the bank. Approval to remit the funds was received from the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ). The law firm, on receipt of confirmation from the bank that the RBZ had given authority to remit the funds, contacted the bank in regard to the payment. The bank immediately wrote to the RBZ indicating that it had insufficient funds from its allocation to make the payment and requested the requisite funds from RBZ's Allocation Committee. The RBZ responded to indicate that the application had been referred to the Financial Markets Division for consideration. Held, that the applicant lacked locus standi in bringing the application against the bank and the firm. The remedy would lie against the RBZ in an application brought by the firm on the applicant's behalf, since it was the RBZ which had the responsibility to issue funds to the bank, in order for them to put into effect instructions given to them by the firm on behalf of the applicant.

Held, further, that the applicant's right to freedom of movement was not being infringed by the bank or the firm.