First National Bank and Another v Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd (20832/14) [2016] ZASCA 60 (14 April 2016)

First National Bank and Another v Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd (20832/14) [2016] ZASCA 60 (14 April 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claim by Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd had not prescribed, as prescription only commenced running from August or September 2008 when the auditors requested source documents and Scenematic began investigating the debit orders. The summons was served within three years of that date. The court found that Naude had acted fraudulently by inserting Scenematic's account number into a personal agreement and authorising debit orders without proper authority, and that his evidence was dishonest and unreliable. First National Bank was held liable for failing to ensure proper authority before debiting Scenematic's account, as it owed a duty of care to its client...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 60
Parties
Appellant: First National Bank (a division of FirstRand Bank Ltd); Appellant: Thomas Johannes Naude; Respondent: Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 April 2016
Case Number
20832/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Both special pleas of prescription are dismissed. Both appellants are held jointly and severally liable for the amount claimed.
Judges
Navsa, Majiedt, Mbha, Zondi, Tsoka
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Pure Economic Loss, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Banker Liability, Negligence, Authority to Debit
Civil Procedure Delict Banking and Finance Prescription Act Pure Economic Loss Fraudulent Misrepresentation Banker Liability Negligence +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First National Bank (a division of FirstRand Bank Ltd)

Appellant

Thomas Johannes Naude

Appellant

Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd's claim against First National Bank and Thomas Johannes Naude had prescribed under the Prescription Act 68 of 1969.
  2. 2 Whether First National Bank was liable for debiting Scenematic's account without proper authority.
  3. 3 Whether Naude acted fraudulently in causing Scenematic's account to be debited for his personal liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claim by Scenematic One (Pty) Ltd had not prescribed, as prescription only commenced running from August or September 2008 when the auditors requested source documents and Scenematic began investigating the debit orders. The summons was served within three years of that date. The court found that Naude had acted fraudulently by inserting Scenematic's account number into a personal agreement and authorising debit orders without proper authority, and that his evidence was dishonest and unreliable. First National Bank was held liable for failing to ensure proper authority before debiting Scenematic's account, as it owed a duty of care to its client...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Both special pleas of prescription are dismissed. Both appellants are held jointly and severally liable for the amount claimed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Both defendants' special pleas are dismissed with costs.