JUDGMENT
034947/2023_ 11.02.2026 / lh
2
December 2021 to 14 August 2022 it collected payments on
Caltex’s behalf, but paid Caltex double the amount that was
due to Caltex under the terms of the card services
agreement. On the basis of that factual allegation t wo
unjustified enrichment claims were advanced.
The first is a claim for enrichment sin e causa . Nedbank
says that it made payments in the sum R1 918 917.03 to
Caltex in error. The error was that Nedbank did not know that
the amounts had already been paid over to C al tex by
EasyPay. On that basis , at paragraphs 11 to 13 of the 10
particulars of claim, Nedbank says that Caltex was enriched
at its expense without legal cause.
An alternative claim based on the condictio indebiti is
advanced at paragraphs 14 to 19 of the particulars of claim.
There the cause of the payments in the alternative is alleged
to have been the bona fide , reasonable but erroneous belie f
that Caltex had not yet received payment through Nedbank's
intermediary , EasyPay.
Either way the nub of the case is that Caltex received
double what it should have done under the agreement that it
20
concluded with Nedbank.
It was initially difficult to understand what the basis of
the exception was. The primary basis on which the exception
was advanced is that the allegations as I have set them out
disclose no cause of action. They plainly do . T he cause of
JUDGMENT
034947/2023_ 11.02.2026 / lh
3
action is unjustified enrichment in either one of the forms I
have set out . If I can understand what the cause of action
is , Caltex should have no difficulty. In those circumstances,
I fail to see on what basis Nedbank can be suggested not to
have made out a cause of action.
The second suggestion appears to be that Caltex is
embarrassed in the sense that it does not know how to plead,
because it is unsure of the status of EasyPay, the
intermediary through which Nedbank provided the card
payment services under the agreement. I struggle d to
10
ascertain the relevance of EasyPay's status . I ts role in the
agreement between Nedbank and Caltex i s set out clearly in
the particulars of claim.
Mr Braga , who appeared for Caltex, suggested that it
is not clear from the particulars of claim whether the
suggestion is that the amounts allegedly paid in error are due
to be repaid to EasyPay or to Nedbank . B ut it is clear enough
to me that the claim is that the payments made in error are
owed to Nedbank, not to EasyPay. The claim is that Nedbank
made the payments believing that EasyPay had not already
20
done so. Mr Braga raised the possibility that in fact some of
the payments may have been made by Nedbank before
EasyPay made them, in which case the amounts would be
due to EasyPay and not Nedbank. As I put to him during
argument, that sounds to me like the basis of a plea. It does