South Africa Case Law

Everton Construction and Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Others v Access Bank South Africa Limited and Another (6487/2017)

Everton Construction and Engineering (Pty) Ltd and Others v Access Bank South Africa Limited and Another (6487/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 501 (22 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6487/2017

Judge

Mahalelo

The High Court held that the plaintiffs must begin evidence at trial because they bear the onus on key pleaded issues, including the banking agreements and alleged unauthorised debits.

• Duty To Begin
• Burden Of Proof
• Banker Client Relationship
• Unauthorised Debits
• Contractual Terms
• Duty-to-begin

Nedbank Limited v Houtbosplaas (Pty) Ltd and Another (164/2021)

Nedbank Limited v Houtbosplaas (Pty) Ltd and Another (164/2021) [2022] ZASCA 69; [2022] 3 All SA 361 (SCA); 2022 (6) SA 140 (SCA) (19 May 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

164/2021

Judges

Petse, Zondi, Gorven, Tsoka, Makaula

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Nedbank unlawfully refused to close two companies’ accounts and was liable for mora interest after delaying transfer of their funds.

• Banker Client Relationship
• Financial Intelligence Centre Act
• Mora Interest
• Summary Closure Of Accounts
• Shareholder Voting Rights
• Contractual Termination

Absa Bank Ltd v Veludo (89853/15)

Absa Bank Ltd v Veludo (89853/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 37 (29 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

89853/15

Judge

N Davis

The High Court granted summary judgment for a bank seeking repayment of an erroneously credited account payment, finding no bona fide defence.

• Unjustified Enrichment
• Payment Sine Causa
• Banker Client Relationship
• Summary Judgment
• Appropriation Of Funds
• Summary-judgment

State Bank of India and Another v Denel SOC Limited and Others (947/13)

State Bank of India and Another v Denel SOC Limited and Others (947/13) [2014] ZASCA 212; [2015] 2 All SA 152 (SCA) (3 December 2014)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

947/13

Judges

Brand, Bosielo, Theron, Mbha, Fourie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the demands made by the Indian banks under seven of the eight counter guarantees did not comply with the terms of those guarantees, as they were premised on non-fulfilment of contractual obligations rather than the specific events required by the guarantees. Therefore, Absa was not obliged to pay under those counter guarantees, and Denel was entitled to interdictory relief restraining payment pending finalisation of proceedings in India. However, with respect to counter guarantee no 821-02-0002584G, the guarantee expressly provided for exclusive jurisdict…

Source excerpt

• On Demand Guarantees
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Interdictory Relief
• Banker Client Relationship

Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (599/09)

Bredenkamp and Others v Standard Bank of SA Ltd (599/09) [2010] ZASCA 75; 2010 (4) SA 468 (SCA) ; 2010 (9) BCLR 892 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 113 (SCA) (27 May 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

599/09

Judges

Harms, Cloete, Ponnan, Cachalia, Saldulker

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the bank was entitled to terminate the banking relationship with the appellants on reasonable notice in terms of both express and implied contractual rights. The court rejected the argument that fairness is a free-standing requirement for the exercise of a contractual right, finding that unless the enforcement of a contract implicates an identified constitutional value or public policy consideration, there is no basis to refuse enforcement on grounds of fairness alone. The appellants conceded the validity of the contractual term and did not identify any c…

Source excerpt

• Banker Client Relationship
• Termination Of Contract
• Public Policy
• Constitutional Values In Contract
• Contractual Fairness

Holtzhausen v Absa Bank Beperk (2951/2005)

Holtzhausen v Absa Bank Beperk (2951/2005) [2006] ZAFSHC 92 (17 August 2006)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2951/2000

Judge

G. van Coppenhagen

The court dismissed Holtzhausen’s delict claim against Absa Bank, finding he failed to prove a negligent misstatement about cheque clearance.

• Negligent Misstatement
• Pure Economic Loss
• Banker Client Relationship
• Aquilian Action
• Negligent-misstatement
• Pure-economic-loss

Meihuizen Freight (PTY) Ltd v Transportes Maritimos de Portugal lda and Others (AC 128/02)

Meihuizen Freight (PTY) Ltd v Transportes Maritimos de Portugal lda and Others (AC 128/02) [2002] ZAWCHC 63; 2003 (5) SA 148 (C); [2002] 4 All SA 737 (C) (15 November 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC 128/02

Judge

Davis

The court held that the attachment and arrest of the freight monies was valid under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulations Act, as the order granted by Nel J was sufficiently broad to permit attachment of the claim to the money held by the bank for the benefit of the first respondent. The Act recognizes freight as a form of property that can be attached, and the concept of 'owner' in this context includes a person entitled to receive the money, not just the bank holding the funds. The court found that only the portion of the funds to which the first respondent was entitled at the time of atta…

Source excerpt

• Security Arrest
• Attachment Of Freight
• Admiralty Jurisdiction
• Property In Rem
• Disbursements
• Banker Client Relationship