RTGS dollarsForeign currency accountsExchange control directiveProperty rightsConstitutional challenge
Tags
Banking lawCurrency conversionConstitutional challengeExchange control
legislation
Statutes Cited
Banking Act [Chapter 24:20]
Reserve Bank Act [Chapter 22:15]
Finance (No.2) Act 2019
Constitution of Zimbabwe
Constitution of Zimbabwe
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether CABS must pay applicant in USD despite currency conversion laws","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Account balance, currency conversion, banking relationship"}
{"issue_text":"Whether Exchange Control Directive RT/120/2018 is irrational and should be set aside","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Directive's rationale, separation of FCAs, monetary policy"}
{"issue_text":"Whether s 22(1)(b)(d)(e) of Finance (No.2) Act 2019 violates constitutional rights","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Property rights, equal protection, currency conversion"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant sought payment of US$179,541.45 from his bank account with CABS, claiming the amount was unlawfully converted to RTGS dollars. He challenged the constitutionality of Exchange Control Directive RT/120/2018 and provisions of the Finance (No.2) Act 2019 that converted USD balances to RTGS dollars at par.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases