Exchange Control Directivecurrency conversionUSD to RTGSproperty rightss 71 Constitution
Tags
constitutional challengecurrency conversionproperty rights
legislation
Statutes Cited
Criminal Justice Act 1991
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997
Human Rights Act 1998
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(4)
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 5(1)
European Convention on Human Rights, Article 14
Prison Act 1952
Criminal Justice Act 1967
Criminal Justice Act 1982
Criminal Justice Act 1988
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether Exchange Control Directive RT120/2018 is unconstitutional for violating s 71 of the Constitution","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Conversion of USD142 000 to RTGS142 000"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the conversion constituted unlawful deprivation of property","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Deprivation of USD value through conversion"}
{"issue_text":"Whether paras 2.5 and 2.6 of the Directive are ultra vires s 35(1) of Exchange Control Regulations","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Scope of delegated legislative power"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants, who held a USD142 000 bank account with the first respondent, challenged the conversion of their deposit to RTGS dollars at parity by monetary authorities through Exchange Control Directive RT120/2018 and related legislation, alleging violation of their constitutional property rights under s 71 of the Constitution.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases