Standard Bank has defended its subsidiary Stanbic Bank Zambia on allegations of bribing three judges in that country to receive favourable judgment against its former client.

Standard Bank said yesterday that the accusations had no merit.

“Stanbic Bank believes in transparency and the rule of law. We respect the judgment, which was arrived at in a fair and transparent manner in accordance with the laws of the land,” Standard Bank said.

This comes after Stanbic appealed the September 2016 ruling by high court judge Justin Chashi, who ordered the bank to pay Savenda K192.5 million (R253.23m) for loss of business and vital contracts after the bank reported the local enterprise to the Credit Reference Bureau for defaulting on instalments.

Savenda received a loan of $540000 (R7.18m) from Stanbic in 2007.

According to records, Savenda was servicing the loan as scheduled, but the bank’s system could not capture these monthly repayments. Stanbic admitted the error and put it in writing that they would rectify the problem.

But, another Standard Bank reported Savenda to the Credit Reference Bureau as a deliquescent borrower.

In March Stanbic appealed to the Court of Appeal, which decided that the damage suffered by Savenda was only nominal or existing in name only and awarded Savenda K5000.

Three Supreme Court judges Nigel Mutuna, Michael Musonda and Evans Hamaundu dismissed the appeal by Savenda.

Since then, several individuals and organisations have accused the three judges of professional misconduct.

The National Empowerment Forum called on chief justice Irene Mambilima to constitute a tribunal against the three judges.

However, the Law Association of Zambia (LAZ) has defended the Court of Appeals ruling and supported the judges.

“As LAZ we have understood these comments and allegations as being calculated to interfere with the proper administration of justice, calculated at instilling fear in the minds of the named and other judges for purposes of impending their independence in the adjudicative process and inhibiting the discharge of the duty that counsel owes his client,” LAZ said.

LAZ said while the members of the public are at liberty to comment on decisions of the courts in Zambia and exchange views on the decisions, it was contemptuous to allege a bias and incompetence against the court.

“A party or any person who makes such allegations is liable to be cited for contempt of court and if convicted, sentenced to imprisonment or to pay a fine or both,” LAZ warned.

[Read 144 times, 1 reads today]
Loading...

6 COMMENTS

  1. Mr. editor the word is delinquent meaning repeat offender not deliquescent which refers to a solid absorbing moisture from the atmosphere

    2

    0
  2. This is not true: According to records, Savenda was servicing the loan as scheduled, but the bank’s system could not capture these monthly repayments. Stanbic admitted the error and put it in writing that they would rectify the problem.

    Facts are: 1. there was an error in the Stanbic system, but (2) with or without the error, Savenda was in default. The amount of the default was exaggerated by the Stanbic error and immediately corrected to reflect the correct amount of default.

    3

    1
  3. Only a fooool would trust Standard Bank knowing its history…i have vowed never to put a penny in their bank!!

    3

    1
  4. #2 Pedantic, thanks for the clarification.

    All right thinking Zambians just ignore jj, his thinking is poluted by his other affiliations. I have been banking with Stanbic since it first came to Zambia and I have been sleeping very well with no worries about my money. Wouldn’t trust jj’s suggestive gesture towards his bank, his branch manager is probably from a certain clan, you know these guys by now.
    Coming to the case, the high court judgement was ridiculous and it should be the one whose competence should be questioned. With what #2 Pedantic has clarified, how on earth could the high court award an amount THIRTY FIVE (35) TIMES, or 3,500%, the loan amount, and with a case of default established save for an error which was admitted and corrected? The only error I see here is the…

    1

    0
  5. Contd…
    With what #2 Pedantic has clarified, how on earth could the high court award an amount THIRTY FIVE (35) TIMES, or 3,500%, the loan amount, and with a case of default established save for an error which was admitted and corrected? The only error I see here is the high court judgement, BUT note that I am not alleging any corruption of the high court judge, like others, you know whom.
    Note the fact that Savenda default, which shows that they were not a Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg in terms of running a successful business, far from it! See my point?

    0

    0

Comments are closed.