How far is a bank liable if you lose your credit card and pin?

“I lost my wallet with my credit card in it and a piece of paper on which I wrote down my new card pin number. Because I was hoping I may still find my wallet, I didn’t immediately stop my bank card. A few hours later somebody used my card to pay for food on the other side of town. I then immediately phoned the bank to stop the card and informed the bank that somebody else had my card and pin. The bank told me in that case the bank would not be liable for my losses. Is this true?”

Generally, when unauthorised transactions have taken place on a bank card, the bank will investigate to ascertain how the transaction had occurred and who was liable for losses incurred. In general most card agreements entered into between a bank and cardholder includes provisions that the cardholder has a contractual obligation to keep the card safe and not disclose the card pin to anyone. The bank also has a contractual obligation to mitigate losses in a case where the cardholder informs them of a fraudulent transaction.

Our courts have found that a cardholder can be liable for losses if the cardholder acts negligently by for example, disclosing the pin. This was determined after taking into account the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice in South Africa read together with the contract concluded between the bank and the cardholder. Exceptions may be where card thieves have obtained the pin by recording the cardholder when using the pin etc. and the Ombudsman for Banking Services indicated in a Card Cloning Bulletin that it cannot reasonably be expected that a cardholder must search for things like hidden cameras. 

Where a card pin was obtained for example by the cardholder storing the pin in a wallet with his card and the card and pin were used to conclude transactions, it will probably stand to good reason that the cardholder was negligent in this respect and the bank would not be liable for the unauthorised transactions, taking into account the contractual terms between the bank and the cardholder. 

Banks do however generally have an obligation to mitigate losses, subject to the circumstances of each case, and if a cardholder for instance informed the bank that the card and pin has been compromised or stolen and the bank fails to stop the card, then the bank could be held liable for losses ensuing.

Each case will however have to be assessed on its merits and the refusal of a bank to accept liability for losses can be challenged by a court or possibly the Ombudsman for Banking Services. In your case the circumstances appear to point towards negligence on your side which will preclude the bank from being liable for the unauthorised transaction on your card.

June 11, 2020
Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Protecting creators in the digital era – Copyright amendments

Nearly 5 decades after its original enactment, South Africa’s copyright regime is undergoing one of the most significant reforms in its history. The Copyright Amendment Bill [B13F-2017] introduces modern protections to secure the financial and digital interests of authors and performers, thereby strengthening their economic rights in an increasingly digital world. While parts of the Bill remain under constitutional review, a landmark 2025 court ruling has already enforced critical protections for users with disabilities. This article breaks down the primary measures intended to safeguard South African creativity.

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The importance of due diligence in M&A

The excitement of a merger or acquisition often sits in the “big picture” strategy, but the success of the deal lives or dies in the details. Due diligence is not a box-ticking exercise. It is the point at which assumptions are tested, risks are priced, and uncomfortable questions are asked. This article explores why looking before you leap, by conducting a thorough due diligence, is the golden rule of mergers & acquisitions (“M&A”) transactions.

Customary marriages stand equal

Customary marriages stand equal

In a landmark judgment delivered on 21 January 2026, the Constitutional Court pronounced welcomed clarity on the interplay between customary marriages, civil marriages, and antenuptial contracts (“ANC”). The Court, by majority decision in VVC v JRM and Others (CCT202/24) [2026] ZACC 2 (21 January 2026) , declined to confirm a High Court order that had declared section 10(2) of the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998 (“the Recognition Act”) unconstitutional. The majority decision powerfully reaffirmed the equal constitutional status of customary marriages and established that spouses cannot unilaterally alter their matrimonial property regime without judicial oversight.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest