Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)

 Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)

Issue: Whether an insurance company that has paid out a claim under an insurance policy can recover the money from the insured if the insured was not entitled to the money in the first place.

Facts:

Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd (WFE) was an insurance company that had insured a building against fire. The building was damaged by fire, and WFE paid out the insurance claim to the owner of the building.

Later, it was discovered that the owner of the building had deliberately set the fire in order to claim the insurance money. WFE demanded that the owner of the building repay the money, but the owner of the building refused.

WFE applied to the Supreme Court of South Africa (Court) for an order declaring that the owner of the building was not entitled to the insurance money and that WFE was entitled to recover the money from the owner of the building.

Held:

The Court held that WFE could recover the money from the owner of the building. The Court reasoned that the owner of the building had been unjustly enriched by receiving the insurance money and that WFE was entitled to recover the money as a condictio indebiti.

A condictio indebiti is a legal remedy that allows a person to recover money that they have paid to another person by mistake. In this case, WFE had paid the insurance money to the owner of the building by mistake because they were not aware that the owner of the building had deliberately set the fire.

Key Facts:

• An insurance company paid out an insurance claim to the owner of a building that was damaged by fire.
• Later, it was discovered that the owner of the building had deliberately set the fire in order to claim the insurance money.
• The insurance company demanded that the owner of the building repay the money, but the owner of the building refused.
• The insurance company applied to the Supreme Court of South Africa for an order declaring that the owner of the building was not entitled to the insurance money and that the insurance company was entitled to recover the money from the owner of the building.

Reasons:

• The Court held that the insurance company could recover the money from the owner of the building because the owner of the building had been unjustly enriched by receiving the insurance money.
• The Court reasoned that the owner of the building had not been entitled to the insurance money because they had deliberately set the fire.
• The Court also found that the insurance company had paid the insurance money to the owner of the building by mistake.

Conclusion:

The Court's decision in Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A) is a significant case in South African law. The Court's decision clarified the law of unjust enrichment and made it clear that a person who has been unjustly enriched by receiving money by mistake is liable to repay the money.