https://www.polity.org.za
Deepening Democracy through Access to Information
Home / Legal Briefs / SchoemanLaw Inc RSS ← Back
Screen
Screen
screen
Close

Email this article

separate emails by commas, maximum limit of 4 addresses

Sponsored by

Close

Article Enquiry

Some do and don't when it comes to your bank account

Close

Embed Video

Some do and don't when it comes to your bank account

Schoeman Law logo

30th November 2021

ARTICLE ENQUIRY      SAVE THIS ARTICLE      EMAIL THIS ARTICLE

Font size: -+

We often read about banks, clients and scams. Often we see litigation between the bank and its Client. So, where does the reciprocal duty start and end?

In Firstrand Bank Ltd v Kgethile (M370/2018) [2021], ZANWHC 63 (31 August 2021), considered this. Although not a binding decision, still extremely useful to consider.

Advertisement

In this case, on 30 August 2010 client  entered into a written agreement in which the bank (applicant) would open a banking account termed a Smart Account for the Client. 

The bank alleged that the Client was grossly negligent or fraudulent by using the account as an overdraft facility. The Client visited an internet café and received a pop-up screen message informing him he had won money. The message asked for the respondent to provide his banking details.

Advertisement

Bank claimed based on breach of contract and alternatively fraud.

Court's finding and why it matters

Court re-emphasise the symbiosis of the relationship between banks and clients. Such symbiotic relationship embraces a reciprocal duty of care: between the bank for its clients; and clients for the bank.

In restating common law position: duty of care is owed to persons whom one can reasonably anticipate may suffer harm due to one's actions or inaction. But such damage has to be foreseeable. Banks must adhere to the customer's instructions and perform their duties with the required degree of care in good faith and without negligence. The bank must act only on the proper instructions of the respondent and not on fraudulent instructions.

The fact that the Client was negligent cannot justify a finding that this negligence summarily entitles the bank to damages for any consequences flowing from this specific negligent act. Moreover, the loss did not occur from the breach alone. The bank was also negligent regarding its contractual obligations in terms of the agreement.

Conclusion

Clients should not share their details with third parties unknown to them. All parties should be more vigilant and educate themselves continuously on the latest trends. Join one of our webinars or follow us on social media to stay informed of the latest developments and best practices.  

Written by Nicolene Schoeman-Louw, Managing Director, Schoeman Law

EMAIL THIS ARTICLE      SAVE THIS ARTICLE ARTICLE ENQUIRY

To subscribe email subscriptions@creamermedia.co.za or click here
To advertise email advertising@creamermedia.co.za or click here

Comment Guidelines

About

Polity.org.za is a product of Creamer Media.
www.creamermedia.co.za

Other Creamer Media Products include:
Engineering News
Mining Weekly
Research Channel Africa

Read more

Subscriptions

We offer a variety of subscriptions to our Magazine, Website, PDF Reports and our photo library.

Subscriptions are available via the Creamer Media Store.

View store

Advertise

Advertising on Polity.org.za is an effective way to build and consolidate a company's profile among clients and prospective clients. Email advertising@creamermedia.co.za

View options
Free daily email newsletter Register Now