Mamba and Another and Another v Central Bank of Swaziland and Another (992 of 2009) [2009] SZHC 39 (20 March 2009)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SWAZILAND

HELD AT MBABANE Civil Case No. 992/2009

QHAWE MAMBA 1^st Applicant

ULTIMATE PRODUCTIONS (PTY) LTD 2^nd Applicant

And

CENTRAL BANK OF SWAZILAND 1^st Respondent

NEDBANK SWAZILAND LIMITED 2^nd Respondent

Coram S.B. MAPHALALA - J

For the Applicant MR. S. MDLADLA

For the Respondent MR. M. MAGAGULA

_____________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT

20^th March 2009

_____________________________________________________________

[1] On the 18^th March 2009, I heard arguments of Counsel in an urgent application brought by the Applicant against the Respondents. The relief sought is in terms of prayers 1 to 8 of the Notice of Motion. The essence of which is setting aside and reviewing the directive by the 1^st Respondent barring the Applicants from opening new accounts and transacting with 2^nd Respondent. In prayer 4 thereof declaring the said decision to bar Applicants from opening and transacting new accounts to be ultra vires, null and void and without force and effect and unconstitutional.

[2] The 2^nd Respondent has declined to enter the dispute in a letter dated 16^th March 2009 directed to the offices of the Applicant’s attorneys. In that letter the 2^nd Respondent states “that we shall not oppose the application made to the High Court and shall be guided by the pronouncement of the High Court on the matter.”

[3] Mr. Mdladla for the Applicants contended that if the 2^nd Respondent is ordered to file an affidavit of its version of events this will assist the court in arriving at a just decision in this case.

[4] However, Mr. Magagula for the 1^st Respondent took the position that his client has no objection in calling the 2^nd Respondent to give the court their side of the story but this exercise will be pointless. That even if the version of the 2^nd Respondent is brought forth the Applicants will fail to prove its case in accordance with the dictum in Plascon Evans Paints Ltd vs Van Rieberck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) S.A. 623 (A).

[5] I have considered these arguments by Counsel and I have come to the view that the 2^nd Respondent ought to tell us in an affidavit of how it received the information from the Central Bank not to do business with the Applicants. It is of paramount importance for the court to hear their version of events. Furthermore, this issue is important on the question of costs whether Applicants acted wily nily in bringing this application as contended by the 1^st Respondent.

[6] In the result, for the afore-going reasons the 2^nd Respondent is ordered to file an affidavit stating its version of events in this case. The said affidavit to be filed with the Registrar of this court within 10 (ten) days from today’s date in view of the urgency of the matter. Costs to be reserved for the time being.

S.B. MAPHALALA

PRINCIPAL JUDGE