PVL3704 (UNJUSTIFIED EMRICHMENT & ESTOPEL)
ASSIGNMENT 01 SOLUTIONS
SEMESTER 2 YEAR 2022
WE ALIGHT TUTORIALS
CALL, SMS/ APP; +27611279778
EMAIL;
NB; FOR FUTURE ACADEMIC HELP, DON’T HESITATE TO GET IN TOUCH!
, QUESTION 1
A owns a factory manufacturing steel in a continuous process. His monthly
electricity bill averages R100 000. He just received a letter from the Johannesburg
Municipality in which they threaten to cut his electricity if he doesn’t immediately
pay his “arrear account of R300 000”. A knows that there must be a mistake
because his account is paid in full, but also knows that if there is a disruption in
his electricity supply, he will suffer severe losses. He pays the amount
immediately and sends a letter of complaint with. Advice A whether he will be
able to reclaim the R300 000 he paid, and with which remedy? In your answer
discuss the requirements for this remedy. (10)
The correct action
The correct action to be instituted by A is the condictio indebiti. This action is available
in instances where a debt not owing was paid. No unlawful, ultra vires or void contract is
relevant here and therefore it seems as if no other condictiones could be applicable.
Requirements for the action and defences against it
i. Transfer of ownership in the form of payment of money or delivery of a specific
object
ii. Payment has to take place under the mistaken belief that the performance was
owing.
iii. The mistake, either a legal or factual mistake, must have been reasonable in the
circumstances (iustus error).
In general, a party cannot reclaim performance with the condictio indebiti if he was
aware that the performance wasn’t owing. Such conduct will be regarded as a donation,
unless it was made under threat or protest. CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990
3 SA 641 (A).1
1
CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A).
ASSIGNMENT 01 SOLUTIONS
SEMESTER 2 YEAR 2022
WE ALIGHT TUTORIALS
CALL, SMS/ APP; +27611279778
EMAIL;
NB; FOR FUTURE ACADEMIC HELP, DON’T HESITATE TO GET IN TOUCH!
, QUESTION 1
A owns a factory manufacturing steel in a continuous process. His monthly
electricity bill averages R100 000. He just received a letter from the Johannesburg
Municipality in which they threaten to cut his electricity if he doesn’t immediately
pay his “arrear account of R300 000”. A knows that there must be a mistake
because his account is paid in full, but also knows that if there is a disruption in
his electricity supply, he will suffer severe losses. He pays the amount
immediately and sends a letter of complaint with. Advice A whether he will be
able to reclaim the R300 000 he paid, and with which remedy? In your answer
discuss the requirements for this remedy. (10)
The correct action
The correct action to be instituted by A is the condictio indebiti. This action is available
in instances where a debt not owing was paid. No unlawful, ultra vires or void contract is
relevant here and therefore it seems as if no other condictiones could be applicable.
Requirements for the action and defences against it
i. Transfer of ownership in the form of payment of money or delivery of a specific
object
ii. Payment has to take place under the mistaken belief that the performance was
owing.
iii. The mistake, either a legal or factual mistake, must have been reasonable in the
circumstances (iustus error).
In general, a party cannot reclaim performance with the condictio indebiti if he was
aware that the performance wasn’t owing. Such conduct will be regarded as a donation,
unless it was made under threat or protest. CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990
3 SA 641 (A).1
1
CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A).
