South African law makes provision for the fact that a person should, in principle, be entitled to institute an action for restitution where their estate was impoverished without justification.

An action for unjustified enrichment may exist if a Plaintiff transferred value to the Defendant and:

1. The Defendant was enriched;
2. The Plaintiff was impoverished;
3. The Defendant’s enrichment was at the expense of the Plaintiff;
4. The enrichment was without legal cause.

There are various types of enrichment actions that find application in certain sets of circumstances. These actions are, however, beyond the scope of the present article, which focuses solely on one enrichment action, namely the condictio indebiti.

The condictio indebiti deals with transfers of value that was made erroneously and without a legal cause. Common examples that could possibly trigger the application of the condictio indebiti includes the following:

• when funds are transferred into an incorrect bank account;
• when funds are transferred to a bank account under the mistaken belief that the funds are due, but are in fact not;
• when funds are transferred to someone under the mistaken believe that there is a valid underlying contract.

To rely on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must first prove the aforementioned requirements for an unjustified enrichment action. If the plaintiff can prove all four requirements, they must further prove that the undue transfer was made either

1. while they were labouring under an excusable mistaken belief that the transfer was in fact due (“error and excusability”); or
2. that the transfer was subject to a certain, sufficient degree of compulsion.1 (“compulsion”)