LAW OF ENRICHMENT CHAPTER 3 1ST CLASSICAL ENRICHMENT ACTION (CONDICTIO INDEBITI) Klein NO v South African Transport Services 1992 Nkosi v Totalizator Agency Board 1988 Willis Faber Enthoven v Receiver of Revenue First National Bank of SA Ltd v B & H Engineering The objective purpose of the condictio indebiti is to make a valid payment of money or transfer of property in ownership enrichment by transfer action of all, the impoverishee endeavours to restore undue payments (of money) made or property transferred without it being owed (indebite) Visser- most common enrichment claim under the rubric of “enrichment by transfer”, by his structure will also include the transfer of a factum and services. Jacques du Plessis- classifies the indebiti as one of the cases of “giving” nd writes a lot about the meaning of “transfer” (datio) and the value of some sort of dealing between the parties (negotium) as distinctive characteristics of the actions in point. Sonnekus- an independant (additional) requirement of the condictio indebiti, but it is clear that the Latin phraseology has elements of both the sine causa and error requirements and is treated. Visser- the mistake- as a requirement for the particular enrichment action, but rather as an explanation why the retention of a benefit without title will be held to be unjustified. Basically (3) requirements are set for the condictio indebiti: Ownership must have passed from the impoverishee to the enrichee- there must have been a datio of money or goods. The transfer must have taken place indebite, that is payment without the moneybeing owed (solutio indebiti), in its broadest sense – without it being justified by means of a civil or natural agreement Nkosi v Totalizator Agency Board Transfer must have taken place in the mistaken belief that the money was due Sonnekus-emphasises that if the undue payment resulted from the slackness of the performer, then the condictio sine causa specialis (as catch all action) cannot be available as the easy out alternative to steer away from the unique and more rigorous requirement of the condictio indebiti, namely excusable mistake Jacques du Plessis- is of the opinion that the indebiti enjoys a position of “pre-eminence” in enrichment law. 2. TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP (DATIO) first requirement of the condictio indebiti is the transfer of ownership in money, movable property (specific things), and res fungibiles
National Credit Regulator v Opperman- CC considered the restitution of money paid in terms of an invalid credit agreement to be considered “property” enjoying the protection of Section 25(1) of the Constitution. If habitatio would have been given unduly, the impoverished party could terminate the stay and claim the amount of rent that the inhabitant would have paid for the lease of such a dwelling.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 12 pages?
- Fall '18