Nedcor Bank Bpk. v Regering van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika (585/98) [2000] ZASCA 65; 2001 (1) SA 987 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 107 (A) (24 November 2000)

Nedcor Bank Bpk. v Regering van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika (585/98) [2000] ZASCA 65; 2001 (1) SA 987 (SCA) ; [2001] 1 All SA 107 (A) (24 November 2000)

The court held that the respondent was aware, by April 1994, of the essential facts giving rise to its claim against the appellant, namely that the treasury order had been paid out by the appellant bank contrary to the respondent's instructions and not to the designated payee, Total. The respondent's lack of knowledge regarding the specific account credited did not prevent prescription from commencing, as the respondent knew the payment was not made to the intended recipient and that the appellant was the only possible debtor. The court rejected the argument that full knowledge of all details or evidence was required before prescription could begin to run. The respondent had sufficient...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 65
Parties
Appellant: Nedcor Bank Beperk; Respondent: Regering van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2000
Case Number
585/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court; Special Plea of Prescription
Outcome
Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription sustained; respondent's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van Heerden, Nienaber, Schutz, Brand, Wunsh
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Delictual Liability, Banking Negligence, Burden of Proof
Civil Procedure Delict Prescription Act Delictual Liability Banking Negligence Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Nedcor Bank Beperk

Appellant

Regering van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court; Special Plea of Prescription

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had knowledge of both the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the claim more than three years before service of summons.
  2. 2 Whether prescription commenced running in terms of section 12(3) of the Prescription Act 18 of 1943.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent needed to know to whom payment was made before prescription could begin to run.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was aware, by April 1994, of the essential facts giving rise to its claim against the appellant, namely that the treasury order had been paid out by the appellant bank contrary to the respondent's instructions and not to the designated payee, Total. The respondent's lack of knowledge regarding the specific account credited did not prevent prescription from commencing, as the respondent knew the payment was not made to the intended recipient and that the appellant was the only possible debtor. The court rejected the argument that full knowledge of all details or evidence was required before prescription could begin to run. The respondent had sufficient...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; special plea of prescription sustained; respondent's claim dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The defendant's special plea is upheld.
  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two advocates.