Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd Reciever of Inland Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)

OVERVIEW

This case dealt with whether an error iuris  (an error in law) could form the basis of the condictio indebiti

FACTS

In 1984 Willis Faber and Co (Pty) Ltd made payments amounting to R 209 627.15 to the Receiver of Inland Revenue for taxes it believed were due and payable in terms of the law. In December 1985 Willis Faber and Robert Enthoven and Co merged to trade as one company, Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd, the appellant in this case.

In the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court(now North Gauteng High Court) it was accepted that the payment were not due and payable but that the error was one in law and not one of

 fact. This meant that it could not form a basis for the condictio indebiti in terms of the established authority [Rooth v The State (1888) 2 SAR 259 and Benning v Union Government (Minister of Finance) 1914 AD 420].

On appeal, the Appellate Division (now the Supreme Court of Appeal) decided that there is no logic in the distinction drawn between errors in fact and errors in law for the purposes of the condictio indebiti and that either would be sufficient to succeed with the condictio indebiti.

PRECEDENT

The court rejected the distinction between error facti and error iuris for the purposes of the condictio indebiti. Error uiris could now form the basis of the condictio indebiti.