, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 2 2026
DUE DATE: AUGUST
Question 1
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must
have been sine causa. (10 Marks)
One of the essential requirements for a successful enrichment claim is that the defendant's
enrichment must have occurred sine causa, meaning without a legal ground or lawful
justification. If the enrichment is supported by a valid legal cause (causa), such as a contract,
statute, court order or another recognised legal basis, an enrichment action cannot succeed
because the enrichment is justified rather than unjustified.1
South African courts have consistently held that enrichment liability arises only where there
is no lawful reason for the defendant to retain the benefit. In McCarthy Retail Ltd v
Shortdistance Carriers CC, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that an enrichment
action is available only where the defendant has been enriched at the expense of the
plaintiff without a recognised legal cause.2 The requirement ensures that the law of
unjustified enrichment does not undermine valid contractual or statutory obligations.
The importance of the absence of a legal cause was also emphasised in Nortje en 'n Ander v
Pool, where the Appellate Division explained that enrichment remedies are subsidiary and
may only be relied upon where no valid legal relationship regulates the parties' rights and
obligations.3 Thus, where parties are bound by a valid contract, their rights are generally
determined by the law of contract rather than the law of unjustified enrichment.
1
Daniel Visser, Unjustified Enrichment (Juta 2008) 23–26.
2
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para 15.
3
Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) 131–133.
DUE DATE: AUGUST
Question 1
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must
have been sine causa. (10 Marks)
One of the essential requirements for a successful enrichment claim is that the defendant's
enrichment must have occurred sine causa, meaning without a legal ground or lawful
justification. If the enrichment is supported by a valid legal cause (causa), such as a contract,
statute, court order or another recognised legal basis, an enrichment action cannot succeed
because the enrichment is justified rather than unjustified.1
South African courts have consistently held that enrichment liability arises only where there
is no lawful reason for the defendant to retain the benefit. In McCarthy Retail Ltd v
Shortdistance Carriers CC, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that an enrichment
action is available only where the defendant has been enriched at the expense of the
plaintiff without a recognised legal cause.2 The requirement ensures that the law of
unjustified enrichment does not undermine valid contractual or statutory obligations.
The importance of the absence of a legal cause was also emphasised in Nortje en 'n Ander v
Pool, where the Appellate Division explained that enrichment remedies are subsidiary and
may only be relied upon where no valid legal relationship regulates the parties' rights and
obligations.3 Thus, where parties are bound by a valid contract, their rights are generally
determined by the law of contract rather than the law of unjustified enrichment.
1
Daniel Visser, Unjustified Enrichment (Juta 2008) 23–26.
2
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para 15.
3
Nortje en 'n Ander v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) 131–133.
