CaseNotes LogoCaseNotes
  • Home
  • Library
  • Research
  • Discussion Hub
  • Wiki
  • Latin Dictionary
  • Question Bank
  • Settings
S

Student

Student Account

South African Law • Jurisdictional Corpus
HomeLibraryResearchQuestionsSettings
Judicial Precedent
Ask AI

Barclays Bank of Zimbabwe Limited v Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe and University of Zimbabwe

CitationHH477-13, HC 552/13
JurisdictionZW
Area of Law
Civil ProcedureBanking Law
Free account

Get the most out of this judgment

Create a free CaseNotes account to save this case, see how it's cited, get an AI summary, and search 10,000+ SA judgments.

Create free accountor sign in
Administrative Law

Facts of the Case

Barclays Bank of Zimbabwe held a foreign currency account for the University of Zimbabwe. On 2 October 2007 and 3 February 2009, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe issued directives (RI:303 and RK26) ordering all Authorised Dealers to transfer Corporate Foreign Currency Accounts and NGO balances to the Reserve Bank. In compliance, Barclays transferred the University's funds to the Reserve Bank, maintaining only a "mirror balance" record. In 2012, the University sued Barclays under Case No. HC 12970/12 for payment of US$6,475,968.14 held in its account. Barclays then applied to join the Reserve Bank as a third party to the action, seeking indemnity or contribution for any amount it might be required to pay the University.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe could be joined as a third party in terms of Order 14 Rule 93 of the High Court Rules
  • Whether the 60-day notice requirement under section 6 of the State Liabilities Act applied to an application for joinder of a third party
  • Whether the applicant had established a prima facie case for joinder under Rule 93
  • Whether the claim for joinder had prescribed
  • Whether the Reserve Bank's immunity defense should bar the joinder application

Judicial Outcome

1. The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe was joined as a third party in Case No. HC 12970/12. 2. The applicant was ordered to file and serve on the Reserve Bank copies of all pleadings and documents filed of record, together with a statement of claim against the Reserve Bank within ten days. 3. The Reserve Bank was entitled to file pleadings within the normal prescribed period and other parties could respond accordingly. 4. Costs of the application were made costs in the cause in HC 12970/12.

Ratio Decidendi

An application for joinder of a third party under Order 14 Rule 93 of the High Court Rules is not a "claim for money" within the meaning of section 6(1)(a) of the State Liabilities Act and therefore does not require 60 days' notice to be given to a state entity before institution. The court has discretion to order joinder of a third party if a prima facie case is shown, unless joinder would embarrass the plaintiff or special circumstances militate against it. Defenses such as immunity, good faith, and negligence are matters to be determined at trial on the merits and do not bar a joinder application. A claim for joinder only arises after summons is served and appearance entered in the main action, and prescription runs from that time, not from the original cause of action.

Obiter Dicta

The court observed that even if the 60-day notice requirement did apply, this would be an appropriate case for condonation under section 6(3) of the State Liabilities Act because the Reserve Bank suffered no prejudice, having had nine months to investigate and being aware of the institutions from whose accounts balances were transferred pursuant to its own directives. The court noted that the claim did not arise from conduct of a single official in a remote location but from the Reserve Bank's own directives which it readily admitted issuing. The court also commented on the proper form of order, noting that the applicant should file a statement of claim against the third party rather than merely serving copies of existing pleadings from the main action.

Legal Significance

This case clarifies the application of third party joinder procedures in Zimbabwe and the interaction between civil procedure rules and statutory protections for state entities. It establishes that applications for joinder are procedural applications distinct from substantive claims for money, and therefore fall outside the notice requirements of the State Liabilities Act. The case demonstrates the courts' willingness to facilitate efficient resolution of disputes involving state entities where multiple parties may have liability for the same loss, while preserving the rights of all parties to plead their defenses at trial. It also illustrates the proper approach to joinder applications involving the Reserve Bank and the limited scope of preliminary defenses available at the joinder stage.

Cases Cited in This Judgment

  • Pretorius v Trustees of Ponders End Body Corporate and Earth Zone PropertiesCSOS 7586/GP/22 (Adjudication Order, 03 June 2024)
    Appeal From

    Barclays Bank applied in terms of Order 14 Rule 93 to join the Reserve Bank as a third party in HC 12970/12, seeking indemnity or contribution. The Reserve…

Practice This Case

Sign up to practise IRAC analysis, issue spotting, and argument building on this case.

Explore More Cases

More Civil Procedure cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (04 February 2026)
  • 4 Seasons Logistics CC v Nicholas Ngwanammoto Kgotse(1215/2023) [2026] ZASCA 09 (4 February 2026)
  • A A Alloy Foundry (Pty) Limited v Titaco Projects (Pty) LimitedCase No. 309/97
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19
  • Aaron Kundiona v Masvingo Cooperative Union and Messenger of CourtHMA 05-20; HC 25-20

More Zimbabwe cases

  • (1) Douglas Tanyanyiwa (2) Douglas Warriors Football Club v Lawrence Bernard GwaradaCivil Appeal No. SC 150/11; Judgment No. SC 79/2014
  • (1) Elias Hwenga (2) Mercy Hwenga (3) Kenneth (4) Prince Nyemba (5) A. P. Phillip and Company (Private) Limited v FBC Bank LimitedJudgment No. SC 36/21, Civil Appeal No. SC 204/16
  • (1) Isador Husaiwevhu (2) Walter Mutowo (3) Fungai Zinyama v (1) UZ-UCSF Collaborative Research Programme (2) Sheriff of Zimbabwe N.O (3) High Court Registrar N.OJudgment No. SC 86/25, Civil Appeal No. SC 302/25
  • (1) Petros Makaza (2) Golden Nhika v The State and (1) Khumbuzo Gumbo (2) Sydney Ndachengedzwa v The StateCCZ 16/17 (Const. Application No. CCZ 5/13 and Const. Application No. CCZ 102/13)
  • 1. Tapera Sengweni v The Law Society of Zimbabwe 2. Augustine Runesu Chizikani v The Law Society of ZimbabweHH 706-19, LPDT 8/18 and LPDT 27/18
  • (1) Tungamirai Madzokere (2) Lazarus Maengahama (3) Stanford Maengahama (4) Phineous Nhatarikwa (5) Stanford Mangwiro (6) Yvonne Musarurwa (7) Rebecca Mafukeni v The State
SC 8/12; Civil Application No. 318/11
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited & 2 Others v Good Living Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 50/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 351/19
  • A. Adam and Company (Private) Limited and Others v Goodliving Real Estate (Private) LimitedSC 18/21; Civil Appeal No. SC 444/19