This case underscores the intricate intersection of refugee issues with contractual and restitutionary claims, highlighting the complexities that can emerge in disputes involving mistaken payments and refund policies within higher education institutions. The plaintiff invoked a condictio indebiti (claim to recover something not owed), placing the onus on the defendant to prove non-enrichment and bona fide disposal. The court, considering the requirements for condictio indebiti, emphasized that the defendant must have been enriched, the plaintiff impoverished, the defendant's enrichment at the plaintiff's expense, and the enrichment unjustified due to a reasonable but mistaken belief in owed payment. Relying on legal precedent, particularly African Diamond Exporters, the plaintiff contended that the defendant, having received funds in bad faith, could not assert non-enrichment. However, the court ultimately ruled that the defendant was not enriched for the enrichment action, and the disposal was made in good faith.
Refugee, enrichment action, development and welfare assistance, tertiary institution, donor organisation
The plaintiff, hailing from the Netherlands, agreed to sponsor "Prosper," a Burundian refugee and student, for a four-year course on HIV/AIDS Management at the defendant, a Namibian University. The plaintiff transferred €7,290 British pounds to the defendant on February 6, 2007, to cover Prosper's tuition fees. However, the tuition fees were only N$7,290 Namibian dollars, resulting in an overpayment of €6,146.32 British pounds.
Allegations were made that the plaintiff had no obligation for this overpayment, asserting that the defendant received the sum without a valid cause. It was further contended that the defendant was enriched by €6,146.32 British pounds, leading to the plaintiff's impoverishment in the same amount.
The plaintiff claimed that Prosper misled the defendant, asserting entitlement to the credit for his entire course, while the plaintiff argued an obligation only for one year and living expenses. The plaintiff denied Prosper's alleged entitlement.
The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed with costs. These costs included the costs of counsel, if they were engaged.
The court was guided by the judgments in African Diamond Exporters and Phillips v Hughes.