Beetge v Drenha Investments (Pty) Ltd 1964 (4) SA 62 (W)

Beetge v Drenha Investments (Pty) Ltd 1964 (4) SA 62 (W)

Issue: Whether a person who has made a payment to another person under a mistake of law is entitled to recover the payment, if the other person has changed their position in reliance on the payment.

Facts:

Beetge (plaintiff) and Drenha Investments (Pty) Ltd (defendant) were neighbours in Johannesburg. The boundary between their properties was a fence.

The plaintiff mistakenly believed that the fence was on his property. The defendant knew that the fence was not on the plaintiff's property, but he did not tell the plaintiff.

The plaintiff then built a new fence on what he believed to be his property line. The new fence encroached on the defendant's property.

The defendant discovered the encroachment and demanded that the plaintiff remove the new fence. The plaintiff refused to remove the new fence.

The defendant then sued the plaintiff for the removal of the new fence and for damages. The plaintiff argued that he was not liable to remove the new fence or to pay damages because he had made the encroachment under a mistake of law.

Held:

The Witwatersrand Provincial Division held that the plaintiff was liable to remove the new fence and to pay damages for the encroachment. The Court reasoned that a person who has made a payment to another person under a mistake of law is not entitled to recover the payment, even if the other person has changed their position in reliance on the payment.

Key Facts:

• A person mistakenly believed that a fence was on his property and built a new fence on what he believed to be his property line. The new fence encroached on the property of his neighbour.
• The neighbour discovered the encroachment and demanded that the person remove the new fence. The person refused to remove the new fence.
• The neighbour sued the person for the removal of the new fence and for damages. The person argued that he was not liable to remove the new fence or to pay damages because he had made the encroachment under a mistake of law.

Reasons:

The Court held that the person was liable to remove the new fence and to pay damages for the encroachment because a person who has made a payment to another person under a mistake of law is not entitled to recover the payment, even if the other person has changed their position in reliance on the payment.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Beetge v Drenha Investments (Pty) Ltd 1964 (4) SA 62 (W) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarifies the law relating to the right of a person to recover a payment they have made under a mistake of law, even if the other person has changed their position in reliance on the payment.