ABSA Bank Beperk v Gert Janse van Rensburg

The respondent, a farmer and long‑standing client of ABSA Bank, operated an overdraft account from 1969. The bank sued him for payment of R174 530,87, being the debit balance on the overdraft after July 1997. The respondent disputed liability and counterclaimed, alleging that from 1969 until 28 March 1992 the bank had charged interest in excess of an agreed rate of prime plus 1%. He claimed repayment of overcharged interest and sought a statement and debate of account. The trial court accepted that excessive interest had been charged before 1992 and held that the bank had to prove the correctness of all debits since 1969. It also rejected the bank’s defence that the counterclaim had prescribed. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with judgment for the bank for R174 530,87, together with interest at 2,25% above the bank’s prime rate from 26 July 1997 to date of payment, and costs.

The case is significant for clarifying the legal consequences of overpaid interest on a running overdraft account, confirming that repayment must be sought via the condictio indebiti and is subject to prescription. It also affirms that the bank‑client relationship in respect of a current account is not fiduciary in nature and that customers are not automatically entitled to a statement and debate of account. The judgment provides important guidance on prescription under section 12 of the Prescription Act.