A Statutory Analysis of the Role of the Courts in Protecting Financial Consumers Rights in the Zimbabwean Banking Sector: The Penelope Case in Context

Abstract

The Zimbabwean banking sector has experienced several tumultuous challenges since 2000. This is owing chiefly to the political and economic challenges the country has experienced. Poorly conceived and ill-timed policies have also wreaked havoc in the Zimbabwean banking sector. Financial consumers have sometimes lost their savings to hyper-inflation or overnight policy changes in Zimbabwe. The change in currencies is a good example of how financial consumers have seen their deposits and savings at banks and other related financial institutions eroded to nothing. In 2018, the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) issued a directive for all banks to convert all deposits made prior to October 2018 from the United States (US) dollar denomination to the Zimbabwean dollar (bond notes and coins). This was done on an exchange rate of one US dollar as to one Zimbabwean dollar, yet in reality, the local currency had been devalued. The RBZ directive left individuals and corporates reeling from exchange losses. The directive was akin to a heist and many people lost trust and confidence in the Zimbabwean banking sector. While many financial consumers suffered in silence, some decided to take their banks to court, demanding a reimbursement of their deposits in the currency in which they deposited or alternatively, the equivalent of the original deposit using the correct exchange rate. This article examines the role of the courts in upholding the rights of financial consumers in the Zimbabwean banking sector in the light of the Penelope case. It also discusses how the Zimbabwean courts could assist in preserving the sanctity of the bank-client relationship among banks and financial customers. In addition, the article explores the role of the courts in challenging unjust laws that affect financial consumers' investments in banks. The strengths and weaknesses of the Zimbabwean banking regulatory framework are further discussed to assess if it is robust enough to protect financial consumers. The article recommends that the courts should objectively set aside unjust laws in the interest of justice to enable banks and other financial institutions to honour their contractual obligations. Policymakers should not adopt poor policies that infringe upon financial consumers' rights.