Ltd, Court of Appeal Civil Appeal Number 75 of 2006. In the judgment it was noted that English law for a long time has accepted a third category of remedies that is different from that in tort and contract which provides against unjust enrichment or benefit according to the speech of Lord Wright in the case of Fibrosa Spolka Akeyjna vs. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 and 61. I have generally considered this definition in the citation of the case as Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1942] 2 All ER 122 at Page 135 in the judgment of Lord Wright. The case was for money paid for a consideration which failed where he held that: “It is clear that any civilised system of law is bound to provide remedies for cases of what has been called unjust enrichment or unjust benefit, that is, to prevent a man from retaining the money of, or some benefit derived from, another which it is against conscience that he should keep. Such remedies in English law are generically different from remedies in contract or in tort, and are now recognised to fall within a third category of the common law which has been called quasi-contract or restitution.” Illustrations by Lord Wright of the principle of recovery for unjust enrichment are as follows: „Money paid under a mistake of fact‟; „money paid by an insurance company under the mistaken impression that it was due to an executrix under a policy which had in fact been cancelled‟; „prepayment on account of money to be paid as consideration for the performance of a contract which in the event becomes abortive and is not performed, so that the money never becomes due;‟ “In such circumstances there was no intention to enrich the payee”. He further held that “the gist of the action is a debt or obligation implied or more accurately imposed by law, in much the same way as the law enforces as a debt the obligation to pay a statutory or customary impost.” I further wish to make reference to the Oxford Dictionary of Law Fifth edition definition of the term "quasi contract" at page 401 that: “A field of law covering cases in which one person has been unduly enriched at the expense of another and is under an obligation quasi ex contractu (as if from a contract) to make restitution to him. In many cases of quasi-contract, the Defendant has received the benefit from the claimant himself. The claimant may have paid money to him under a mistake of fact, or under a void contract, or may have supplied services under the mistaken belief that he was contractually bound to do so. In that case, he is entitled to be paid a reasonable sum and is said to sue on a quantum meruit (as much as he deserved). Alternatively, the claimant may have been required to pay to a Third Party money for which the Defendant was primarily liable. The Defendant's receipt of the benefit need not necessarily, however, have been from the claimant. It is enough that it was at the latter's expense, and he may therefore be liable in quasi-contract for money paid to him by a Third Party on account of the claimant.” Decision of Hon. Mr. Justice Christopher Madrama Izama *^*~?+: 30