STANBIC Bank Zambia Limited has asked the Lusaka High Court to dismiss the matter where Savenda Management Services Limited has sued it seeking immediate payment of the balance of more than K7.6 million for abuse of the court process.
This is in a matter where Savenda has sued the bank seeking an order for damages of breach of contract, interest, costs, and any other relief that the court might deem fit.
In its summons to strike out pleadings for abuse of court process, Stanbic Bank, through its lawyers, Eric Silwamba, Jalasi, and Linyama Legal Practitioners, said that the originating process filed by Savenda was irregular as it offends the provisions of Order 18 Rule 19 sub Rule 38 of the Supreme Court (White Book) which bar re-litigation of a natter that has been successfully determined to finality by court of competent jurisdiction rendering the same to be abuse of the court process and the contravention of the principal res judicata.
Stanbic Bank stated that the purported originating process was an abuse of the court process as it was anchored on a cause of action which was an incident of multiplicity of actions as there were ongoing court proceedings in the High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Zambia.
The cases are under cause nunbers 2014/HPC/0076, 2016/CAZ/08/40 and SCZ/08/014/2017.
The bank added that the originating process was also an abuse of court process as it was anchored on a cause of action that had already been litigated upon, rendering the action scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and offensive to the provisions of Order 18 rule 19 sub Rule 15 and Sub Rule 16 of the Supreme Court (White Book 1965, Volume 11 1999 edition.
“Consequently, the purported originating process is irregular and must be dismissed and costs of and incidental to these proceedings be borne by the plaintiff in any event,” Stanbic Bank stated.
Savenda Management Services Limited in its statement of claim filed in the Lusaka High Court Commercial registry stated that on or about February 13, 2014, it commenced proceedings against the bank under cause no. 2014/HPC/0076 by way of writ of summons and statement of claim.
The plaintiff claimed for K192,500,000.00, damages for loss of business, an order that Savenda be immediately de listed from the Credit Reference Bureau (CRB), damages for loss of business and profits, damages for negligence, damages for injury to business reputation and any other relief plus costs.
Savenda contended that on or about August 17 2016, judgment was delivered in its favour and the court found that it was entitled to all the relief sought.
The complainant said that it levied execution against the goods of Stanbic Bank by writ of Fieri Facias and the court bailiffs seized the bank’s goods as may be sufficient to realise the judgment debt and any related expenses.
“On September 21, 2016, the defendant (Stanbic) negotiated with the plaintiff’s (Savenda) lawyers at the time to stop the execution and entered into an agreement for the following: that K9.625 million was to be paid towards the judgment sum, inclusive of legal costs, the sheriff’s fees was to be paid and the process of de listing Savenda from the CRB was to begin,” Savenda said.
It stated that relying on Stanbic’s undertaking to stop the execution against the seizure of goods and having paid K2 million towards the agreed K9.265 million, Savenda instructed the sheriffs to stop the execution.
Savenda said that in breach of the agreement, Stanbic had failed to make the contractual payments when they fell due.
“The defendant has made demands to be repaid K2 million and to be repaid the sheriff’s fees when they have already enjoyed the benefit which accrued once the execution was stopped,” it contended.
“In consequence of the failure by the defendant to make the payment when they fell due, the plaintiff has suffered loss and damage,” it stated.