On 11 February 2000, the Universal Merchant Bank (Unibank) attempted to prevent the distribution of the “Zimbabwe Independent” newspaper through an unsuccessful court injunction, the newspaper reported. Unibank lawyer Jonathan Samkange woke up High Court Justice Bartlett at around midnight (local time) to deal with an ex-parte application to prevent the distribution of the “Independent”. […]
On 11 February 2000, the Universal Merchant Bank (Unibank) attempted to prevent the distribution of the “Zimbabwe Independent” newspaper through an unsuccessful court injunction, the newspaper reported.
Unibank lawyer Jonathan Samkange woke up High Court Justice Bartlett at around midnight (local time) to deal with an ex-parte application to prevent the distribution of the “Independent”. The paper carried a story saying that the government had asked Unibank to show cause why its license should not be withdrawn. Bartlett dismissed the application, saying that the prevention of the paper’s distribution would have serious financial consequences on the respondent, especially considering that the paper had no opportunity to state its case. The application had cited the paper’s editor, Trevor Ncube, as the respondent.
In relation to the dismissal, Bartlett noted that the case was weakened by the fact that the bank did not raise any alarm when the “Independent” published an article a week earlier painting a bleak picture of the bank’s financial position.
“But the point I endeavour to make is that while either article can easily cause alarm to depositors, the fact that the prior publication of the first article, not having the alarming consequences the applicant fears, weakens and seriously undermines the argument of the drastic remedy of interdicting the distribution of the paper,” said Bartlett.
As part of his argument, Samkange had presented a letter from Minister of Finance Herbert Murerwa, which read: “As Minister of Finance, I confirm that I am not withdrawing the Universal Merchant Bank Zimbabwe Ltd.-Unibank license.” Bartlett dismissed the letter, saying the article never suggested that the bank’s license would be cancelled. “Accordingly, I do not consider that the Minister of Finance’s letter of February 10, because of its stark brevity, is of any material assistance to the point the applicant needs to establish to allow the drastic relief it seeks,” Bartlett ruled.
Bartlett also dismissed the bank’s argument that the consequences of the distribution of the article had serious ramifications and any claim for damages was far beyond the “Independent’s” ability to pay.
“Just as I have no evidence before me of what the financial position of the applicant is, I similarly do not have evidence as to the financial status of the respondent. I accordingly cannot speculate on what sort of damages claim it may or may not have the capacity to meet,” said Bartlett.
