1 reviews | Active since Mar 2023
FNB’s Contradictory Litigation Strategy – A Customer’s Experience
I initiated a Small Claims Court case against FNB for R25,000 for a non transparent penalty clause not disclosed on inception and contrary to the Financial Sector Regulation act section 7, which was deducted from my investment account. FNB defended the claim vigorously, instructed attorneys, and contested the matter through to judgment. The claim was dismissed, resulting in judgment in their favour.
I then exercised my legal right to apply for a High Court review of that judgment. Here's where the dilemma arises: FNB has now chosen not to oppose the High Court review, despite having invested time and resources in defending the original judgment.
The Contradiction That Defies Logic
At the Small Claims Court: FNB clearly considered this matter important, enough to appoint their attorneys and defend it.
At the High Court: FNB appears to consider that same victory unworthy of defence.
This paradox raises serious questions:
If it was important enough to defend initially, why is the judgment now not worth protecting?
If it is now too trivial to defend, why expend resources to contest it in the first place?
The Inevitable Outcome With no opposition, the High Court may:
1. Set aside the Small Claims judgment which FNB fought so hard to obtain
2. Order a fresh hearing before a different officer
3. Effectively nullify FNB’s so-called victory
4. Force all parties back to square one
My Attempts to Understand and Resolve
1. I contacted Ms Ramsunder (FNB’s Small Claims representative). Her response: “Please communicate via attorneys.” No explanation.
2. I contacted G***** Kannieappan Inc., FNB’s attorneys. I warned them that:
A reasonable out-of-court settlement remains available
An unopposed High Court review may become permanent public record on SAFLII
The precedent this sets may empower other customers to challenge FNB Their response: Silence. No engagement at all.
Why This Matters to All FNB Customers
Precedent risk: High Court judgments are published permanently on the South African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII). This could establish: • FNB’s Small Claims victories can be successfully challenged • FNB may decline to defend review applications • A route for other customers to follow
Reputational impact: The narrative may become: “One of South Africa’s largest banks defended a case, won it, then abandoned that victory when challenged by a self-represented litigant.”
False economy: By avoiding immediate legal costs (± R30,000-R50,000), FNB may incur: • Guaranteed re-litigation costs when the matter returns to Small Claims • An increased number of review applications from other customers • Long-term reputational damage far exceeding any short-term savings
What This Reveals About FNB’s Approach As a mathematics graduate, I’ve analysed this systematically. The most probable explanation is that FNB’s attorneys did not anticipate or plan for a High Court review when formulating the Small Claims strategy. This suggests either:
Inadequate strategic foresight
Underestimation of a self-represented litigant’s capability
Failure to correct course even when error became apparent
What’s truly concerning: even after I explicitly offered settlement discussions and warned of the consequences, FNB chose silence over resolution.
The Bottom Line This entire approach “smacks of a novice business owner”, not a sophisticated financial institution with fiduciary responsibilities.
For me personally: if the matter proceeds unopposed, I will end up in South Africa’s legal archives as the self-represented litigant who obtained a High Court judgment against FNB — not because of superior resources, but because of FNB’s own strategic failures. That is not the outcome I sought when I started. But it is the one FNB’s decisions have made probable.
My Question to FNB Why defend a case, win it, then refuse to protect that victory — while ignoring all attempts at reasonable settlement?
FNB’s silence and strategic inconsistency speak volumes about how the institution treats customers when challenged. This review is twofold: (1) to inform the public about how FNB handles disputes, and (2) to invite confirmation from FNB’s CEO and Board of Directors that they approve of how FNB handles this matter. I would like that confirmation in writing.
References : 1. Pinetown Small Claims Case Number SC127/2025 2. Durban High Court Case Number 2***
Message to the Public
If FNB provides this written confirmation, I will post it here for transparency. If they do not, that in itself will speak volumes.
Small court case number SC127/2025
High court case number 2025/192872
Small court case number SC127/2025
High court case number 2025/192872
Mr. Anthony Pandaram,
Thank you for your email contents of which have been noted.
Please take note that the Bank does not wish, at this juncture, to deal with all the unfounded allegations and averments made by you in your email and our failure to do so must not be construed as an admission thereof. We reserve the right to deal with such allegations and averments in due course if necessary.
The Bank is represented in this matter and is unable to correspond further. You are advised to direct your queries in respect of this matter to our attorneys of record, G***** Kannieappan Inc.
Kind regards
Orelia Mankgeru
Investment Advisor
My response to this email to fnb is follows
This message is actually quiet funny . Fnb email has provided me with a level of insight into the Bank’s internal operations that I could not have obtained elsewhere. It is astonishing that a simple, direct question about the Bank’s own conduct has resulted in a response so thoroughly misaligned with the issue at hand.
Instead of clarity, I received a template-style legal deflection — not from their legal department, compliance division, or even client services — but from an Investment Advisor, who now appears to be tasked with issuing litigation-related statements. If this is truly the standard operating procedure at the Bank, it would certainly explain the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions customers regularly encounter.
My question required no legal expertise, no attorney intervention, and no defensive pre-emptive disclaimers. It required only a basic understanding of your own internal decision-making. The fact that this appears to be beyond the Bank’s capacity is deeply concerning and raises obvious questions about competence, communication, and organisational structure.
Let me restate what you seem unable to grasp:
I did not ask for the Bank’s legal position.
I did not request argument on the merits.
I did not ask for attorney-client strategy.
I asked for the Bank to explain its own actions — something any institution confident in its processes should be able to answer without fear, hesitation, or confusion. Further i asked for the CEO to endorse your answer
Fnb refusal to address the question, paired with the misallocation of staff and the incoherent nature of the reply, reflects remarkably poorly on the Bank’s internal credibility. It creates the unmistakable impression of an institution unable to account for its own decisions unless an attorney scripts every word.
If this is the level of organisational clarity within the Bank, then the public deserves to know. I will continue documenting this matter publicly until a direct and competent response is received. Updates will be done every 5 days until i receive my response as requested in writing
Mr. Anthony Pandaram,
Thank you for your email contents of which have been noted.
Please take note that the Bank does not wish, at this juncture, to deal with all the unfounded allegations and averments made by you in your email and our failure to do so must not be construed as an admission thereof. We reserve the right to deal with such allegations and averments in due course if necessary.
The Bank is represented in this matter and is unable to correspond further. You are advised to direct your queries in respect of this matter to our attorneys of record, G***** Kannieappan Inc.
Kind regards
Orelia Mankgeru
Investment Advisor
My response to this email to fnb is follows
This message is actually quiet funny . Fnb email has provided me with a level of insight into the Bank’s internal operations that I could not have obtained elsewhere. It is astonishing that a simple, direct question about the Bank’s own conduct has resulted in a response so thoroughly misaligned with the issue at hand.
Instead of clarity, I received a template-style legal deflection — not from their legal department, compliance division, or even client services — but from an Investment Advisor, who now appears to be tasked with issuing litigation-related statements. If this is truly the standard operating procedure at the Bank, it would certainly explain the numerous inconsistencies and contradictions customers regularly encounter.
My question required no legal expertise, no attorney intervention, and no defensive pre-emptive disclaimers. It required only a basic understanding of your own internal decision-making. The fact that this appears to be beyond the Bank’s capacity is deeply concerning and raises obvious questions about competence, communication, and organisational structure.
Let me restate what you seem unable to grasp:
I did not ask for the Bank’s legal position.
I did not request argument on the merits.
I did not ask for attorney-client strategy.
I asked for the Bank to explain its own actions — something any institution confident in its processes should be able to answer without fear, hesitation, or confusion. Further i asked for the CEO to endorse your answer
Fnb refusal to address the question, paired with the misallocation of staff and the incoherent nature of the reply, reflects remarkably poorly on the Bank’s internal credibility. It creates the unmistakable impression of an institution unable to account for its own decisions unless an attorney scripts every word.
If this is the level of organisational clarity within the Bank, then the public deserves to know. I will continue documenting this matter publicly until a direct and competent response is received. Updates will be done every 5 days until i receive my response as requested in writing
Dear Customer,
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to investigate your matter.
This notification confirms that your complaint has now been closed.
Should you have any concerns, please call ***.
Regards, FNB
First National Bank A division of FirstRand Bank Limited. An Authorised
My response is that this situation is becoming funnier by the minute. It genuinely appears that FNB has reached the limits of its mental capacity. They may be rushing to close their internal complaint, but unfortunately for them, the HelloPeter complaint remains wide open — and will stay open until the Bank finally manages to answer a very simple question.
I will continue posting updates every five days, documenting each instance of silence and confusion. Once there is a substantial trail of unanswered updates on HelloPeter.com, I will take the matter further by engaging a news reporter to publish an article outlining my experience and FNB’s ongoing inability to provide basic answers.. eventually they will answer , we just have to figure out when their mental abilitie will click in , perhaps they should start with why i started these posts. FNB do you get it? Still dont? , dont worriy keep on trying you will get there
Dear Customer,
Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to investigate your matter.
This notification confirms that your complaint has now been closed.
Should you have any concerns, please call ***.
Regards, FNB
First National Bank A division of FirstRand Bank Limited. An Authorised
My response is that this situation is becoming funnier by the minute. It genuinely appears that FNB has reached the limits of its mental capacity. They may be rushing to close their internal complaint, but unfortunately for them, the HelloPeter complaint remains wide open — and will stay open until the Bank finally manages to answer a very simple question.
I will continue posting updates every five days, documenting each instance of silence and confusion. Once there is a substantial trail of unanswered updates on HelloPeter.com, I will take the matter further by engaging a news reporter to publish an article outlining my experience and FNB’s ongoing inability to provide basic answers.. eventually they will answer , we just have to figure out when their mental abilitie will click in , perhaps they should start with why i started these posts. FNB do you get it? Still dont? , dont worriy keep on trying you will get there
Now, let's see whether FNB is truly as *********** and astonishingly careless as they appear, allowing this to drag on. I know I'm smarter than most people, but am I really smarter than an entire bank's staff? You never know - time will tell.
Well, folks, it's been another five days in the FNB Chronicles of Corporate ***ardice, and – shockingly – crickets from the bank that prides itself on "helping" customers. No explanation, no CEO endor*****t, no attempt to defend their baffling strategy of winning a case just to abandon it like yesterday's trash. At this rate, we might hit 12 months of radio silence before they muster the brainpower to string together a coherent sentence.
Let's recap for the newcomers (and apparently for FNB's leadership, who seem to need flashcards): I asked a toddler-level question – why fight tooth and nail in Small Claims Court (SC127/2025), rack up attorney fees, snag a "victory," and then ghost the High Court review (2025/192872) like a bad date? If it's so trivial now, why the initial circus? If it's important, why the white flag? Their answer? A masterclass in deflection: log a complaint, close it prematurely, and shuffle me to attorneys who won't engage. Now, total blackout.
This isn't just sloppy – it's a credibility implosion. Picture one of South Africa's "premier" banks, with billions in assets, fumbling basic accountability like a novice intern. Customers, take note: if FNB can't explain their own actions without hiding behind legalese and silence, how can you trust them with your money? Hidden penalties, contradictory strategies, and zero transparency – sounds like a recipe for financial disaster, not fiduciary excellence.
But hey, FNB, keep playing hide-and-seek. Every five days, I'll be here updating this thread, turning your silence into a permanent public exhibit of institutional ineptitude. Because if you won't answer, the court of public opinion will – and it won't be kind . I’m perfectly fine with your silence — it gives me more time to update my HelloPeter public forum page. This is a long game; I just need to keep it going for a year, so go ahead and keep reading while I rack up the points and take my win.
Now, let's see whether FNB is truly as *********** and astonishingly careless as they appear, allowing this to drag on. I know I'm smarter than most people, but am I really smarter than an entire bank's staff? You never know - time will tell.
Well, folks, it's been another five days in the FNB Chronicles of Corporate ***ardice, and – shockingly – crickets from the bank that prides itself on "helping" customers. No explanation, no CEO endor*****t, no attempt to defend their baffling strategy of winning a case just to abandon it like yesterday's trash. At this rate, we might hit 12 months of radio silence before they muster the brainpower to string together a coherent sentence.
Let's recap for the newcomers (and apparently for FNB's leadership, who seem to need flashcards): I asked a toddler-level question – why fight tooth and nail in Small Claims Court (SC127/2025), rack up attorney fees, snag a "victory," and then ghost the High Court review (2025/192872) like a bad date? If it's so trivial now, why the initial circus? If it's important, why the white flag? Their answer? A masterclass in deflection: log a complaint, close it prematurely, and shuffle me to attorneys who won't engage. Now, total blackout.
This isn't just sloppy – it's a credibility implosion. Picture one of South Africa's "premier" banks, with billions in assets, fumbling basic accountability like a novice intern. Customers, take note: if FNB can't explain their own actions without hiding behind legalese and silence, how can you trust them with your money? Hidden penalties, contradictory strategies, and zero transparency – sounds like a recipe for financial disaster, not fiduciary excellence.
But hey, FNB, keep playing hide-and-seek. Every five days, I'll be here updating this thread, turning your silence into a permanent public exhibit of institutional ineptitude. Because if you won't answer, the court of public opinion will – and it won't be kind . I’m perfectly fine with your silence — it gives me more time to update my HelloPeter public forum page. This is a long game; I just need to keep it going for a year, so go ahead and keep reading while I rack up the points and take my win.
Good day Sir
Thank you for your email. The Bank does not wish to respond to each, and every allegation raised in your recent correspondences but reserves its right to do so in the event that it is deemed necessary.
You elected to take the Commissioner?s decision on review; thus the current dispute is between yourself and the Commissioner of the Small Claims Court.
The Bank will await the outcome of the review before it determines how it will proceed.
Kind regards Ndivhuwo Mudzunga FNB Cash Investment
My response to the above although i dispute this because FNB is the first Respondent, however i note that this is a much better email and i applaud the bank for understanding its relationship it has with its customer in which it is obliged to report to its customer. Further the underlying understanding that the bank displays , of which it respects its customer . Accordingly this brings this complaint and posting to a closure.
Good day Sir
Thank you for your email. The Bank does not wish to respond to each, and every allegation raised in your recent correspondences but reserves its right to do so in the event that it is deemed necessary.
You elected to take the Commissioner?s decision on review; thus the current dispute is between yourself and the Commissioner of the Small Claims Court.
The Bank will await the outcome of the review before it determines how it will proceed.
Kind regards Ndivhuwo Mudzunga FNB Cash Investment
My response to the above although i dispute this because FNB is the first Respondent, however i note that this is a much better email and i applaud the bank for understanding its relationship it has with its customer in which it is obliged to report to its customer. Further the underlying understanding that the bank displays , of which it respects its customer . Accordingly this brings this complaint and posting to a closure.