Finance Bank Malawi will know the fate of its record K1.1 trillion compensation claim within the next 21 days following conclusion of hearing of the assessment in Blantyre yesterday.
Malawi Supreme Court of Appeal assistant registrar Ibrahim Hussein hinted at the period for determination after hearing final oral submissions from parties to the case.
“Having reached this point, we have concluded the matter. If all goes well, the ruling could be delivered in the next 21 days,” he said.
In the case, Finance Bank is facing a challenge from the State and the Reserve Bank of Malawi (RBM) over its claim after the Supreme Court on February 3 2026 ruled that the central bank’s decision to revoke the bank’s licence in 2005 over alleged malpractices was unconstitutional.
Through its lawyer Modecai Msisha, Senior Counsel (SC), the ‘dead’ bank argued that the Supreme Court’s order for damages to be assessed, “if any”, did not cast doubt on wrongdoing.
“Wrongdoing will always lead to consequences and consequences will be payment of damages,” he said.
Msisha said the bank quantified its damage and the claimed figures arose from the court order. He also asked the court to consider projected losses from the business that came to a standstill after the revocation of the licence.
“Loss of business and profits that are a result of what could have been made was not made because of the consequences of the tort [civil wrong] that was committed [by RBM],” said Msisha.
Making the final submission, he also relied on Mahtani Group of Companies of Zambia financial adviser Nkhuzo Kuwani’s evidence on damage caused by RBM’s intervention.
Kuwani previously testified that forensic reconstruction put lost profits at $134 million (about K234.6 billion) while a National Bank comparison produced $551 million (about K964.8 billion).
But RBM lawyer James Masumbu SC said Kuwani disclosed that his role was connected to the shareholders.
“Mr Kuwani did not hide, he stated over and over that he had interest in the shareholders when calculating and submitting the evidence,” he said.
Masumbu also said the Supreme Court’s order did not mean all grounds of appeal had been granted.
Another RBM lawyer, Patrice Nkhono SC, said the bank’s licence was reinstated in 2006 and it should not seek damages beyond that period.
“The most correct thing is to award nominal damages,” he said.
Nominal damages refer to a small amount of money granted when a legal right has been violated.
However, Attorney General Frank Mbeta said the absence of a full judgement since the ruling was made in February could prompt speculation about the evidence the Supreme Court accepted.
“What is clear is that the court made it clear that damages be assessed, if any. They also emphasised that the burden of proof lies on the claimants to prove the actual damage itself,” he said.
Mbeta also said the licence was reinstated before the bank went into voluntary liquidation.
The case began in May 2005 when FBM counterclaimed for loss of business after revocation of its banking licence.
In October 2014, the High Court of Malawi awarded RBM K13 million and dismissed FBM’s counterclaim.
After the revocation of its licence, the bank briefly resumed banking operations before closing permanently in January 2006.
