Al Shams Global Ltd v Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe & Ors

Al Shams Global Ltd (applicant), a British Virgin Islands company, had a long-standing relationship with the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (first respondent) spanning over two decades since 2002, providing funding for urgent national needs. The first respondent owed the applicant over US$53 million under a deed of settlement dated 31 December 2022, and was paying it back in weekly instalments of US$250,000. The applicant also had a contractual relationship with Fidelity Gold Refinery (second respondent) for gold supply and purchase, whereby the applicant would export gold and bring back cash in hard currency. On 31 May 2025 and 18 June 2025, the applicant's representative imported US$6 million and US$6.1 million respectively into Zimbabwe, declaring it at the port of entry by completing ZimRA Form 47. He deposited US$7 million into the second respondent's account with Getbucks Microfinance Bank (third respondent). In July 2025, the first respondent suspended the second respondent's account without notice to the applicant, demanding an explanation on the "source of funds" for the US$7 million deposit. This effectively blocked all funds and crippled the applicant's business operations.

• Whether the applicant had locus standi to seek the relief claimed
• Whether the opposing affidavit by the first respondent's Governor was validly commissioned when signed outside Zimbabwe
• Whether the first respondent's decision to freeze the account was illegal, procedurally improper, and/or irrational in contravention of section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act
• Whether the first respondent acted within its statutory powers under the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Act, Exchange Control Regulations, and Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act
• Whether adequate notice and opportunity to be heard were provided before the administrative action

The decision by the first respondent on 25 July 2025 suspending the second respondent's account number 001206000000 with the third respondent was set aside. Costs of the application were awarded against the first respondent on a party and party scale.

An administrative authority must comply with section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act by acting lawfully, reasonably, and fairly, which includes providing adequate notice of proposed action, giving affected persons a reasonable opportunity to make representations, and supplying written reasons for decisions. A creature of statute can only validly do what the enabling statutory framework gives it capacity to do and cannot usurp functions vested in other statutory bodies. Under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act, powers to investigate suspicious transactions and seize funds are vested in the Financial Intelligence Unit and ZimRA, not the Reserve Bank's internal divisions. For an affidavit to be valid, the deponent must take the oath in the presence of the commissioner of oaths, and both must append their signatures contemporaneously at the stated location, as required by the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act. Locus standi requires a direct and substantial legal interest that is actual, current, and not too remote - a party whose funds are frozen and whose business operations are crippled has standing to challenge the decision.

Mafusire J observed that this was a matter that should not have been in court and ought to have been settled out of court, suggesting it was driven by personality clashes and preservation of self-images rather than genuine legal disputes. The judge criticized the inelegant drafting and lack of focus in the pleadings, particularly the excessive reliance on declaratory orders of facts rather than going straight to the essential remedy sought. The judge noted with concern that litigants often seek endless declaratory orders when the real remedy should be restoration of rights or compensation. The court expressed that the special long-standing relationship between the parties, involving decades of multimillion-dollar transactions, made the first respondent's demand for source of funds information appear disingenuous and driven by factors beyond genuine administrative oversight. The judge also observed that Zimbabwe appears to be unique among gold-exporting countries in permitting gold buyers and sellers to carry cash into the country.

This case is significant in Zimbabwean administrative law for: (1) reinforcing the procedural fairness requirements under section 3 of the Administrative Justice Act, requiring administrative authorities to provide adequate notice, reasons, and opportunity to be heard before taking adverse decisions; (2) clarifying the distinct statutory roles and powers of the Financial Intelligence Unit versus the Reserve Bank's internal divisions under the Money Laundering and Proceeds of Crime Act; (3) emphasizing that even powerful regulatory bodies like the central bank must act within their statutory parameters and cannot usurp functions vested in other statutory bodies; (4) confirming strict requirements for commissioning of affidavits following the Supreme Court's decision in Ariston Management Services v Econet Wireless Zimbabwe; and (5) demonstrating that long-standing commercial relationships and context are relevant to assessing whether administrative decisions are rational and non-arbitrary.