Nobert Katerere v Standard Chartered Bank Zimbabwe Ltd

In 2000, the plaintiff, while based in the United Kingdom, became aware of the defendant bank's investment programme for overseas-based Zimbabweans. The plaintiff contacted the defendant through its employees Bob Matemera and Henry Kwangwari and deposited £8,200 Sterling with the defendant. The money was converted into Zimbabwean dollars and invested by the defendant via Treasury Bills and Bankers Acceptances. The plaintiff opened two accounts: a Foreign Currency Account (FCA) to receive the foreign currency and a Zimbabwe Denominated Account (ZDA) into which the British Pounds were transferred, converted to Zimbabwean dollars, and invested. The investment earned interest and both capital and interest were eventually withdrawn and used by the plaintiff. The plaintiff later introduced additional funds for investment through the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, through its employees, verbally undertook that the Zimbabwe dollar-denominated interest earned from the investment, together with the capital amount, would be converted back into Pound Sterling.

• Whether the defendant, through its employees Bob Matemera and Henry Kwangwari, undertook that the Zimbabwe dollar-denominated interest earned from the investment of £8,200 Sterling would be converted, together with the capital amount, into Pound Sterling
• Whether, if such an agreement existed and the defendant breached it, the plaintiff suffered a loss of £8,200 Sterling
• Whether the defendant is liable to pay back the claimed amount with interest
• Whether the plaintiff proved the existence of the alleged oral agreement on a balance of probabilities
• Whether the plaintiff proved any damages suffered and the quantum thereof

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.

Where a plaintiff alleges an oral agreement with a bank through its employees, the plaintiff bears the onus of proving the existence of such agreement on a balance of probabilities. Documentary evidence and account records may rebut allegations of oral undertakings. Subsequent conduct of the parties, such as introducing additional funds for investment, may be inconsistent with an alleged prior breach and undermine the credibility of such allegations. A plaintiff claiming breach of contract must prove not only the existence of the agreement and the breach thereof, but also must prove damages suffered and the quantum of such damages. An alleged undertaking that would have been unlawful under applicable Reserve Bank regulations is highly improbable and unlikely to be upheld without clear evidence.

The court observed that it was highly unlikely that a plaintiff would ask a defendant bank to invest additional funds if the defendant had already breached an initial investment agreement. The court also noted that the alleged employees (Bob Matemera and Henry Kwangwari) were no longer in the employ of the defendant, making it difficult to verify the plaintiff's version of events directly, but emphasized that the documentary evidence was more reliable than unsupported oral testimony.

This case establishes principles regarding the burden of proof in contract disputes involving alleged oral agreements in the banking context. It demonstrates the importance of documentary evidence in commercial disputes and confirms that banks cannot be held liable for alleged oral undertakings by employees that would have been contrary to applicable Reserve Bank regulations. The case also illustrates the principle that a plaintiff claiming breach of contract must prove not only the existence of the agreement and the breach, but also the damages suffered and their quantum.