PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE DATE: 13 March 2025
Written Assignment Submission Guidelines:
Please ensure that your assignment is submitted electronically through the myUnisa platform no
later than March 2025. Kindly note that fax or email submissions will not be accepted.
NB: Assignment submitted to the lecturer(s) through email will not be considered.
QUESTION 1
The Requirement That the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa
The principle of sine causa is a fundamental requirement in unjustified enrichment claims. It means
that the enrichment must have occurred without a legal cause or justification. In other words, a
person who is enriched at another’s expense should only be required to restore the benefit if there
was no lawful reason for the enrichment. The South African law of unjustified enrichment is
primarily based on Roman-Dutch law principles and has been refined through case law.
Case Law Illustrating the Sine Causa Requirement
One of the leading cases that discuss this requirement is McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA). In this case, the court emphasized that for an enrichment claim
to succeed, the enrichment must have occurred in the absence of a valid legal basis. The court
further highlighted that if the transfer of wealth was done pursuant to a contract, donation, or
another legally valid reason, the claim would fail because there was a causa (legal justification) for
the transfer.
In Nedbank Ltd v Mordt 2018 (6) SA 95 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal reiterated that
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE DATE: 13 March 2025
Written Assignment Submission Guidelines:
Please ensure that your assignment is submitted electronically through the myUnisa platform no
later than March 2025. Kindly note that fax or email submissions will not be accepted.
NB: Assignment submitted to the lecturer(s) through email will not be considered.
QUESTION 1
The Requirement That the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa
The principle of sine causa is a fundamental requirement in unjustified enrichment claims. It means
that the enrichment must have occurred without a legal cause or justification. In other words, a
person who is enriched at another’s expense should only be required to restore the benefit if there
was no lawful reason for the enrichment. The South African law of unjustified enrichment is
primarily based on Roman-Dutch law principles and has been refined through case law.
Case Law Illustrating the Sine Causa Requirement
One of the leading cases that discuss this requirement is McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA). In this case, the court emphasized that for an enrichment claim
to succeed, the enrichment must have occurred in the absence of a valid legal basis. The court
further highlighted that if the transfer of wealth was done pursuant to a contract, donation, or
another legally valid reason, the claim would fail because there was a causa (legal justification) for
the transfer.
In Nedbank Ltd v Mordt 2018 (6) SA 95 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal reiterated that
