, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2
DUE DATE : AUGUST 2026
Question 1 (10 Marks)
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment
must have been sine causa.
The law of unjustified enrichment requires that the defendant's enrichment must have
occurred sine causa, meaning "without a legal cause" or "without lawful justification".1
This requirement ensures that enrichment liability does not arise merely because one
person has benefited at another's expense. Instead, the enrichment must lack a
recognised legal basis such as a valid contract, statutory obligation, donation, or other
lawful ground. Where a valid legal cause exists, the enrichment is justified and cannot
be reclaimed through an enrichment action.2
The principle of sine causa is fundamental because enrichment law is not intended to
replace or override other branches of private law. For example, if money is paid in
terms of a valid contract, the recipient's enrichment is legally justified, even if the payer
later regrets the transaction. Enrichment remedies become available only when the
legal basis for the transfer never existed, has failed, or is subsequently set aside.3
South African courts have consistently recognised this requirement. In Nortje en 'n
Ander v Pool NO, the Appellate Division confirmed that enrichment liability arises only
where one party has been enriched at another's expense without legal
justification.4The court emphasised that enrichment actions are exceptional remedies
intended to restore fairness only where no lawful basis supports the enrichment.
1
CFC van der Walt and GJ Pienaar Introduction to the Law of Property (7th edn, Juta 2016) 330.
2
JG Lotz and DH van der Merwe 'Enrichment' in WA Joubert (ed) The Law of South Africa vol 9 (3rd edn,
LexisNexis 2019) para 209.
3
Daniel Visser Unjustified Enrichment (Juta 2008) 27–29.
4
Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) 131–132.
DUE DATE : AUGUST 2026
Question 1 (10 Marks)
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment
must have been sine causa.
The law of unjustified enrichment requires that the defendant's enrichment must have
occurred sine causa, meaning "without a legal cause" or "without lawful justification".1
This requirement ensures that enrichment liability does not arise merely because one
person has benefited at another's expense. Instead, the enrichment must lack a
recognised legal basis such as a valid contract, statutory obligation, donation, or other
lawful ground. Where a valid legal cause exists, the enrichment is justified and cannot
be reclaimed through an enrichment action.2
The principle of sine causa is fundamental because enrichment law is not intended to
replace or override other branches of private law. For example, if money is paid in
terms of a valid contract, the recipient's enrichment is legally justified, even if the payer
later regrets the transaction. Enrichment remedies become available only when the
legal basis for the transfer never existed, has failed, or is subsequently set aside.3
South African courts have consistently recognised this requirement. In Nortje en 'n
Ander v Pool NO, the Appellate Division confirmed that enrichment liability arises only
where one party has been enriched at another's expense without legal
justification.4The court emphasised that enrichment actions are exceptional remedies
intended to restore fairness only where no lawful basis supports the enrichment.
1
CFC van der Walt and GJ Pienaar Introduction to the Law of Property (7th edn, Juta 2016) 330.
2
JG Lotz and DH van der Merwe 'Enrichment' in WA Joubert (ed) The Law of South Africa vol 9 (3rd edn,
LexisNexis 2019) para 209.
3
Daniel Visser Unjustified Enrichment (Juta 2008) 27–29.
4
Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) 131–132.
