The High Court has criticised the conduct of Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) governor, John Mushayavanhu and his legal team, describing their handling of court papers as "untenable", "highly misleading," and procedurally defective in a ruling that set aside the central bank's decision to freeze millions of dollars linked to a long-running gold trade arrangement.
The ruling arose from an urgent application filed by Al Shams Global Ltd against the RBZ, Fidelity Gold Refinery and GetBucks Microfinance Bank following the freezing of a bank account holding US$7 million imported to gold purchases.
In a detailed judgment delivered on 22 April 2026, Justice Jacob Mafusire questioned how the central bank's Governor purported to swear an affidavit in Harare while he was in Washington, United States, finding the explanation by his lawyers inadequate and unsupported by sworn evidence.
"I could not quite understand the position of the first respondent and its legal practitioners," the judge said, noting that the Governor had in fact been "outside the country on the crucial day" and had allegedly signed the document electronically. "There is no affidavit by either the Governor himself or the commissioner of oaths to explain the situation."
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
The court was scathing about the response from the central bank's lawyers, describing their submissions as irregular and procedurally improper. "The document containing the argument defies description. It is neither a sworn statement nor heads of argument, but purports to be both," Mafusire said.
He added that the affidavit had falsely presented itself as having been signed in Harare in the presence of Gloria Matambo, a commissioner of oaths, ruling: "This was highly misleading."
The judge ultimately struck the Reserve Bank's notice of opposition and opposing affidavit off the record, declaring: "There being no proper opposing affidavit, there is no opposition by the first respondent."
Al Shams sought a mixture of declaratory and mandatory relief, including an order declaring the central bank's conduct unlawful, setting aside its demand for proof of the "source of funds," and reversing the suspension of Fidelity's account. At the core of the dispute was US$7 million deposited into the refinery's account as part of a US$12.1 million cash inflow brought into Zimbabwe in May and June 2025.
The applicant argued that the central bank's actions were illegal, arbitrary and procedurally unfair, saying the freeze crippled its operations and disrupted a gold supply contract under which Fidelity was required to deliver at least 100 kilograms of gold per week.
According to the judgment, Al Shams had for over two decades maintained a financial relationship with the central bank, advancing millions of dollars for national needs. At the time of the dispute, the bank was repaying a debt exceeding US$53 million at a rate of US$250,000 per week.
Despite this relationship, the central bank froze the account in July 2025 while demanding proof of the source of funds, even though it had acknowledged in correspondence that the money originated from Dubai.
The judge noted that the real grievance by Al Shams was the freezing of the account, which "crippled" its business, yet the relief sought was "submerged by layers of declaratory orders." He observed that litigants often obscure the true remedy they seek, adding that in this case the essential issue was the lifting of the embargo.
On the merits, the court found that the central bank violated the Administrative Justice Act by failing to give notice, reasons or an opportunity to be heard before blocking the account. "Before, or even soon after its impugned decision, the first respondent did not comply with the law in regards to providing adequate reasons," Mafusire ruled.
He also found the decision irrational, particularly given the long-standing financial dealings between the parties and the bank's own knowledge of the source of funds. "Such a stance would stick out as unreasonable and irrational," he said, noting the central bank was itself indebted to the applicant and actively involved in similar transactions.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The court further held that the central bank overstepped its powers under anti-money laundering laws, effectively usurping functions reserved for the Financial Intelligence Unit. It found that while the applicant had complied with all legal requirements for importing and declaring cash, the central bank had not followed due process.
"The conduct of the first respondent... cannot escape condemnation as being irrational and arbitrary," the judge said.
In the final order, the court set aside the central bank's decision of 25 July 2025 to suspend the account and ordered it to pay costs.
Despite the sharp criticism, the judge noted the dispute itself was avoidable, describing it as rooted in strained relations rather than purely legal issues. "This was a matter not for the courts... It ought to have been settled out of court," he said, adding that the fallout appeared driven by "personality clashes and the preservation of self-images" between long-time counterparts.
