Firstrand Bank Limited v Khopo and Another (AR497/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 18 (29 March 2019)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Khopo and Another (AR497/2018) [2019] ZAKZPHC 18 (29 March 2019)

The court found that the appellant had proved all elements of unjustified enrichment: the respondents received duplicate payments from the appellant's account, resulting in their enrichment and the appellant's impoverishment, with no legal basis for the transfers. The respondents abandoned their initial defences and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAKZPHC 18
Parties
Appellant: Firstrand Bank Limited; Respondent: Sicelo Richard Khopo; Respondent: Nikita Nonkonzo Khopo
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
AR497/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of the trial court set aside and judgment entered for the appellant.
Judges
Gorven, Seegobin, Bezuidenhout
Legal Topics
Unjustified Enrichment, Banking Application Malfunction, Pleading and Onus, Repayment Defence
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Unjustified Enrichment Banking Application Malfunction Pleading and Onus Repayment Defence

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Firstrand Bank Limited

Appellant

Sicelo Richard Khopo

Respondent

Nikita Nonkonzo Khopo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were unjustly enriched by duplicate payments from the appellant's account.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents repaid the amounts received without legal basis.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents discharged the onus of proving non-enrichment after admitting receipt of the funds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant had proved all elements of unjustified enrichment: the respondents received duplicate payments from the appellant's account, resulting in their enrichment and the appellant's impoverishment, with no legal basis for the transfers. The respondents abandoned their initial defences and failed to plead or prove repayment. The first respondent's version of repayment in cash to a deceased bank employee was inherently improbable, unsupported by evidence, and not pleaded or put to the appellant's witnesses. The trial judge erred in accepting this version and in failing to recognize the shift in onus. The respondents did not discharge the onus of proving...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of the trial court set aside and judgment entered for the appellant.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed with costs, payable jointly and severally by the respondents, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with judgment for the appellant as follows: