Bredenkamp v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd

The appellants, Mr John Bredenkamp and two companies associated with him, held various personal, business, and foreign currency bank accounts with Standard Bank. In November 2008 Bredenkamp was listed by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) as a ‘specially designated national’ due to alleged links with the Zimbabwean government under President Mugabe. Following this listing, Standard Bank suspended and then terminated the appellants’ banking facilities, relying on contractual terms (express and implied) permitting termination of an indefinite banking relationship on reasonable notice. The bank cited reputational risk and potential international business consequences. The appellants sought urgent interdictory relief to prevent closure of their accounts, arguing that even if the contractual right existed, its exercise was unconstitutional and unfair under principles derived from Barkhuizen v Napier.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, and the order of the South Gauteng High Court discharging the interim interdict was upheld.

This case is a leading authority affirming contractual certainty in South African law and clarifying the limited role of constitutional values in private contractual relationships. It confirms that Barkhuizen v Napier does not constitutionalise a general requirement of fairness in the enforcement of contracts and that valid contractual rights may be exercised without justification, provided no public policy or constitutional rights are implicated. The judgment is particularly significant in banking law, confirming a bank’s right to terminate a banker–client relationship on reasonable notice.