Daisy Guest House is suing EcoBank for allowing Zifa to access funds in its account after the football-controlling body’s money had been attached over their failure to pay for $161 762 in accommodation arrears.
In its application, Daisy Guest House cited Ecobank, Zifa, former president, Philip Chiyangwa and the sheriff as first, second, third and fourth respondents, respectively.
Through their lawyers Mahuni and Gidiri Law Chambers, Daisy Guest House asked the court to compel Ecobank to recognise and honour the execution process as carried out by the Sheriff and to stop the depleting of the funds, which are in the bank’s custody.
The same matter was reported on November 20 last year under case number IR111541 at Harare Central Police Station by the Sheriff of the High Court after the sheriff implicated the bank and Zifa officials led by Chiyangwa of connivance to move the money, which had been garnished and supposed to be moved into the sheriff’s account for onward transmission to Daisy Guest House.
“The attachment of Zifa bank accounts with Ecobank were done in terms of Rule of the High Court of Zimbabwe Rules 1971. The attachment is still extant as it has not been challenged in court or any lawful forum by any of the respondents,” Daisy Guest House submitted.
The lawyers said Ecobank on January 22 this year indicated that it was not going to honour the attachment of Zifa bank accounts saying there was no garnishee order compelling it to do so and on January 24 the Sheriff of the High Court indicated that Ecobank had refused to allow the execution to proceed and to transfer the funds.
They submitted that the matter was extremely urgent, saying if the court did not intervene and stop illegal actions of Ecobank the funds held in the bank on behalf of Zifa would be squandered and the satisfaction of the judgment sought to be executed against Zifa would be rendered impossible.
This is not the first time for Zifa to defeat the execution of judgments obtained against it. In September 2017, Zifa’s Steward Bank accounts were attached by its creditors, but the bank refused to execute the order on the pretext that bank accounts could not be attached in the absence of a garnishee order.