Banks file defence in charges case
Sep 19, 2011
SEVEN banks dragged to court by a businessman challenging the legality of bank charges levied on third parties for money collected on behalf of their client have filed their defence.
By Steven Candia
SEVEN banks dragged to court by a businessman challenging the legality of bank charges levied on third parties for money collected on behalf of their client have filed their defence.
The banks filed their joint defence in the commercial division of the High Court on September 5.
They are represented by three law firms - Sebalu and Lule Advocates, MMAKS Advocates and Shonubi, Musoke and Company Advocates.
MMAKS and Sebalu represent Centenary Rural Development Bank, Tropical Bank, Eco Bank, DFCU Bank, Stanbic Bank and Diamond Trust Bank, while Orient Bank is represented by Shonubi, Musoke.
Sam Anguyo sued the banks last month, challenging the legality of bank fees levied on people paying schools, the Government and other private and public bodies.
Anguyo, who is represented by city lawyer Alex Candia of Web Advocates, says the fees are illegal, given that there is no existing contract between the person paying and the bank.
But in their defence, the banks argued that Anguyo could not bring the action on behalf of the general public.
The banks said the fees were levied under an independent contract between the bank and depositor.
They argued that the payment of fees to the bank and the acceptance by the bank to collect the fees constituted a contract between the payer and the bank.
The banks added that the plaintiff could only bring an action on behalf of the public if he had sought a representative order pursuant, which requires that such a person should be known to individuals capable of being personally served with court processes.
But Anguyo contended that the suit was a public interest litigation brought on behalf of all persons who deposit monies on the account of the banks’ customers.
He arguesd that there was no contract, express or implied that existed between the defendants and the depositors.
He noted that even though there was an offer and acceptance as claimed by the defendants, it would not amount to a contract.
SEVEN banks dragged to court by a businessman challenging the legality of bank charges levied on third parties for money collected on behalf of their client have filed their defence.
The banks filed their joint defence in the commercial division of the High Court on September 5.
They are represented by three law firms - Sebalu and Lule Advocates, MMAKS Advocates and Shonubi, Musoke and Company Advocates.
MMAKS and Sebalu represent Centenary Rural Development Bank, Tropical Bank, Eco Bank, DFCU Bank, Stanbic Bank and Diamond Trust Bank, while Orient Bank is represented by Shonubi, Musoke.
Sam Anguyo sued the banks last month, challenging the legality of bank fees levied on people paying schools, the Government and other private and public bodies.
Anguyo, who is represented by city lawyer Alex Candia of Web Advocates, says the fees are illegal, given that there is no existing contract between the person paying and the bank.
But in their defence, the banks argued that Anguyo could not bring the action on behalf of the general public.
The banks said the fees were levied under an independent contract between the bank and depositor.
They argued that the payment of fees to the bank and the acceptance by the bank to collect the fees constituted a contract between the payer and the bank.
The banks added that the plaintiff could only bring an action on behalf of the public if he had sought a representative order pursuant, which requires that such a person should be known to individuals capable of being personally served with court processes.
But Anguyo contended that the suit was a public interest litigation brought on behalf of all persons who deposit monies on the account of the banks’ customers.
He arguesd that there was no contract, express or implied that existed between the defendants and the depositors.
He noted that even though there was an offer and acceptance as claimed by the defendants, it would not amount to a contract.