Absa Bank Ltd v Greyvenstein (54/2002) [2003] ZASCA 13; 2003 (4) SA 537 (SCA) (17 March 2003)

Absa Bank Ltd v Greyvenstein (54/2002) [2003] ZASCA 13; 2003 (4) SA 537 (SCA) (17 March 2003)

The court held that the respondent was no longer the owner of the cheque when it was deposited for collection by the appellant. The respondent had handed the cheque to Scott Asset Managers with the intention that it be deposited into their trust account and invested on his behalf, thereby transferring ownership. The marking 'not transferable' prevented negotiation of the cheque but did not prevent transfer of ownership of the physical document. The respondent's claim was based solely on ownership, and since he was not the owner at the relevant time, the appellant's actions were not unlawful or negligent towards him. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent's claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2003] ZASCA 13
Parties
Appellant: Absa Bank Limited; Respondent: W A Greyvenstein
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2003
Case Number
54/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Howie, Harms, Streicher, Conradie, Cloete
Legal Topics
Collecting Bank Liability, Ownership of Cheques, Negligence, Estoppel, Transferability of Cheques
Banking and Finance Delict Collecting Bank Liability Ownership of Cheques Negligence Estoppel Transferability of Cheques

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Absa Bank Limited

Appellant

W A Greyvenstein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent remained the owner of the cheque at the time it was collected by the appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant acted unlawfully and negligently towards the respondent in collecting the cheque for a third party.
  3. 3 Whether the marking 'not transferable' on the cheque prevented transfer of ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was no longer the owner of the cheque when it was deposited for collection by the appellant. The respondent had handed the cheque to Scott Asset Managers with the intention that it be deposited into their trust account and invested on his behalf, thereby transferring ownership. The marking 'not transferable' prevented negotiation of the cheque but did not prevent transfer of ownership of the physical document. The respondent's claim was based solely on ownership, and since he was not the owner at the relevant time, the appellant's actions were not unlawful or negligent towards him. The appeal was upheld, and the respondent's claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.