Turner N.O v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another [2025] ZAWCHC 177
The deceased (A) died on 1 August 2021 and her estate was reported to the 2nd respondent (the Master). The applicant (T) is the nominated executor in her last will dated 16 November 2013. T’s attorneys reported the deceased estate to the Master on 21 September 2021 and lodged the required documentation, including the death notice, death certificate, original will and acceptance of trust as executor. Letters of executorship were eventually only issued to T on 2 September 2022. Letters of executorship were apparently also issued to one JB on 17 February 2022, although the Master’s copy of these could not be located when the news of this was conveyed to T’s attorneys on 15 August 2022.
The 1st respondent, Standard Bank (the Bank), paid a total amount of R2,191,666.24 which was the combined balance of the deceased’s current and money market accounts with the Bank, to an estates bank account opened with the Bank by JB on 5 April 2022. Over the next 8 days all the funds were transferred from this account and it reflected a zero balance on 13 April 2022.
T applied to court for a declaratory order that 1) the closure of the deceased’s bank accounts and the transfer of the balance from it be declared unlawful, and 2) the Bank be declared liable to T, in his capacity as executor, for the amounts which stood to the credit of A in the two accounts with the Bank. T also applied for an order directing the Bank to pay those amounts, plus interest, to him as executor of the deceased estate of A.
After bringing the application T demanded that the Bank disclose the documents which formed the basis of the Bank’s decision to transfer the funds to JB. The Bank consistently refused, referring to the Protection of Personal Information Act, 4 of 2013, and on the basis that T was not, in the Bank’s view, an interested party. When confronted with a demand for the payment to T of the funds in question, the Bank advised him to contact JB. In its papers, the Bank acknowledged that T was the lawfully nominated executor and should have been appointed as such. The Bank, however, accused T of tardiness in not pursuing the matter more vigorously with the Master, despite T having followed the Master’s internal complaints procedure diligently.
The court (Mangcu-Lockwood J) held that, in South African law, a bank becomes the owner of the funds deposited with it with the client obtaining a personal right to demand payment of the funds to him/herself or to another. In this regard the court referred to Firstrand Bank Ltd v Spar Group Ltd [2021] ZASCA 20 at par 37. It is therefore not for the client to guard against a fraud perpetrated on the bank by a third party, nor can the client act against the fraudster or claim the misappropriated funds from another party to whom the funds were paid. The court rejected the Bank’s claims that it acted with care when allowing JB to have the funds transferred to the estates’ bank account and then from it, on the basis that the Bank could not produce acceptable documents to justify its acceptance that JB was properly appointed as executor in the deceased estate of A. The court granted T’s application with costs and ordered the Bank to pay the funds plus interest, at the rates agreed between A and the Bank, to T.
The Fiduciary Institute of Southern Africa (FISA) has developed an extensive archive of court case summaries relating to fiduciary matters. The summaries are written by FISA CEO, Louis van Vuren.
Below is one relating to a bank’s’ responsibility to an account holder
You can visit the archive at https://www.fisa.net.za/category/court-cases
