According to a judgment of the high court in December 2024, a bank successfully applied for repayment of an amount that had been erroneously paid to an individual who was joint administrator of a trust to which the money ought to have been paid.

A presumption of enrichment arises when money is paid in error. The defendant then bears the onus to prove that the claimant had not been enriched. Where a person hands over money to another, mistakenly believing the money is due, the recipient of the money, if he is aware of the mistake, is not entitled to appropriate the money.

In the circumstances of the case there could be no doubt that enrichment took place at the expense of the bank. The bank had been impoverished by the amount because it had settled the claim of the trust as the intended, correct recipient of the funds. The respondent received and used the money that was deposited into his bank account well-knowing that it was not due to him. There was no justification for the use of the transferred amount. The bank was entitled to repayment of the monies derived from the unjust enrichment claim of a payment without cause (condictio sine causa). The respondent used all but about R6 000 over a three-year period. His allegation that he thought the money was sent to him as a revolving credit facility was rejected.

Judgment was given against the respondent for R935 949.83 (less any amount that may already have been repaid) together with interest at the prescribed rate and costs.

[FirstRand Bank Limited v Moremedi, High Court Northern Cape Division, Kimberley case no 666/2023]