Pestana v Nedbank Limited (A5023/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 283; 2008 (3) SA 466 (W); [2008] 1 All SA 603 (W); 71 SATC 1 (19 November 2007)

Pestana v Nedbank Limited (A5023/07) [2007] ZAGPHC 283; 2008 (3) SA 466 (W); [2008] 1 All SA 603 (W); 71 SATC 1 (19 November 2007)

The court held that the respondent bank was bound by its completed juristic act of payment when it credited the appellant's account with R480 000. The Section 99 notice from SARS did not operate to freeze or cede the funds in Pestana's account to SARS, but merely required the bank to pay SARS from available funds. The bank's mistake in overlooking the Section 99 notice was a mistake in motive and did not vitiate the completed bilateral act of payment. There was no evidence that the crediting of the appellant's account was conditional or that the appellant knew or should have known of any error. The bank could not unilaterally reverse the credit entry without the appellant's authority. The...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 283
Parties
Appellant: Jose Manuel Pestana; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 November 2007
Case Number
A5023/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Trial Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with an order that the respondent credit the appellant's account with R480 000 and pay the appellant's costs.
Judges
I W Schwartzman, E L Goldstein, Z L L Tshiqi
Legal Topics
Garnishment, Income Tax Act Section 99, Banking Juristic Act, Unilateral Mistake, Reversal of Credit Entry
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Garnishment Income Tax Act Section 99 Banking Juristic Act Unilateral Mistake Reversal of Credit Entry

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jose Manuel Pestana

Appellant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Trial Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the respondent bank entitled to reverse the payment of R480 000 to the appellant's account without the appellant's authority, having regard to its appointment in terms of Section 99 of the Income Tax Act?
  2. 2 Did the Section 99 notice from SARS operate to freeze or cede the funds in Pestana's account to SARS?
  3. 3 Does a unilateral mistake by the bank in overlooking the Section 99 notice vitiate the completed juristic act of payment to the appellant?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent bank was bound by its completed juristic act of payment when it credited the appellant's account with R480 000. The Section 99 notice from SARS did not operate to freeze or cede the funds in Pestana's account to SARS, but merely required the bank to pay SARS from available funds. The bank's mistake in overlooking the Section 99 notice was a mistake in motive and did not vitiate the completed bilateral act of payment. There was no evidence that the crediting of the appellant's account was conditional or that the appellant knew or should have known of any error. The bank could not unilaterally reverse the credit entry without the appellant's authority. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the trial court is set aside and substituted with an order that the respondent credit the appellant's account with R480 000 and pay the appellant's costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.