The appellant, a Kazakhstani company, was establishing a gold and copper mine (the Varvarinskoye Project). It contracted with MDM Ferroman (Pty) Ltd as lead contractor for US$55 744 623. To ensure subcontractors were paid, clause 14.4 of the contract required payments to be deposited into a specific bank account (account 1313) held by the sixth respondent (MDM's associated company) with Absa Bank. Money could only be withdrawn on joint signatures of MDM and Investec Bank, and only for approved subcontractor invoices. The appellant used account 1313 to warehouse funds for paying MDM and subcontractors. The account had been dormant before being used for this purpose and only money for the VP was deposited. On 10 December 2005, when account 1313 had a credit balance of R28 244 780.59, Absa appropriated the funds by set-off against another account (7348) of the sixth respondent and MDM, which was overdrawn by approximately R60 million. Absa relied on written agreements and a deed of cross-suretyship by the sixth respondent. MDM was subsequently placed in liquidation. The appellant claimed the money appropriated belonged to it and demanded repayment. Absa refused, arguing only the account holder had rights to money in the account.
The appeal succeeded with costs, including costs of two counsel. The order of the court below was set aside. The court declared that the rights to the money which stood to the credit of account 1313 on 9 December 2005 vested in the appellant. Absa was ordered to pay the appellant R28 244 780.59 together with mora interest at 15.5% per annum from 10 December 2005. Absa was ordered to pay the costs of the application, including costs of two counsel. The costs order in relation to a postponement was varied so that the appellant was ordered to pay costs of the postponement on the unopposed scale (as per its tender) and the respondent was ordered to pay costs occasioned by opposition. The appellant's application for leave to adduce further evidence on appeal was dismissed with costs.
A bank cannot exercise a right of set-off against money held in an account where: (1) the account holder is acting merely as an agent or warehouse for funds belonging to a third party; (2) the bank has knowledge of the source and purpose of the funds and has agreed that withdrawals can only be made according to a prescribed procedure that does not involve control by the account holder; and (3) neither the account holder nor any other debtor of the bank has any beneficial interest or legitimate claim to the funds. In such circumstances, despite the bank's ownership of deposited funds, the third party who deposited the funds for the specific purpose retains a superior claim that prevents the bank from appropriating those funds against debts owed by other parties. Money transferred by bookkeeping entry can be traced and recovered where it can be identified as emanating from a specific account.
Navsa JA emphasized (at para 38) that the court would not lay down abstract general principles about bank ownership rights in hypothetical situations where the bank lacks knowledge of warehousing arrangements, as no such authority was presented and the facts did not require such determination. Cachalia JA observed (at para 50) that the bank's knowledge of the account's intended purpose is irrelevant to determining entitlement; what matters is the intention of the parties to the underlying agreement, and the solitary act of opening an account in another's name does not confer title on the named account holder. The court commented on the conceptual difficulty of conditionally deciding an application to adduce further evidence after determining an appeal, noting that after a final decision a court is functus officio and an appellant must elect whether to apply for reopening before the appeal hearing (para 43). The court also noted (para 45) that the appellant had means under the rules of court (Uniform Rule 35(13)) to compel production of documents during the original application, which was relevant to refusing the application to adduce further evidence.
This case is significant in South African banking and property law for establishing that third parties can assert superior claims to money held in bank accounts where the account holder is merely acting as an agent or warehouse for the true beneficial owner. The judgment clarifies that while banks own money deposited in accounts, this ownership does not preclude other parties from asserting rights to those funds. The case extends the principles in McEwen and Dantex to situations where a bank has knowledge of warehousing arrangements and confirms that set-off rights cannot be exercised against funds to which the debtor has no beneficial entitlement. The case also addresses modern banking realities by confirming that money can be traced and recovered through bookkeeping entries rather than requiring identification of specific coins or notes. The differing approaches of Navsa JA (emphasizing the bank's knowledge) and Cachalia JA (focusing on the contractual intention regardless of knowledge) provide important perspectives on how courts should analyze such disputes.