{"issue_text":"Whether court a quo erred in granting main relief on basis not argued","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Court dismissed main claim then granted it after declaring directive unconstitutional"}
{"issue_text":"Whether court a quo erred in setting aside 2018 Directive on constitutional basis not pleaded","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Respondents did not challenge directive's constitutionality"}
{"issue_text":"Whether court erred ordering USD payment contrary to SI 133/19 and Finance Act provisions","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Directive remained valid and unchallenged"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The respondents, partners in an architectural firm, held a savings account with CABS with a balance of USD 142,000 as at October 2016. Following the introduction of bond notes and subsequent Exchange Control Directive RT120/2018, their account was converted to an RTGS Foreign Currency Account payable in bond notes rather than USD. The respondents demanded payment in USD and challenged the directive's validity.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases