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.
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.
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.
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.
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.