PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT 1 2025
DUE 13 MARCH 2025
SEMESTER 1 2025
, PVL3704 Assignment 01
Semester 01, 2025
Due date: 13 March 20
Question 1
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment
must have been sine causa.
Requirement that the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa
In the context of unjustified enrichment, the requirement that the enrichment must
have been sine causa (without legal cause) is fundamental. This principle ensures
that a party who receives a benefit without a justifiable reason can be compelled to
return it. Various case law illustrates how South African courts have interpreted this
requirement.
1. Govender v Standard Bank
This case is a pivotal authority in distinguishing between the condictio indebiti and
condictio sine causa specialis. The court held that:
A bank paying a cheque does not owe a debt to the payee; rather, the drawer of the
cheque is the party liable.
Since the payment was made after the cheque had been countermanded, the bank’s
payment was made without a legal cause.
The condictio indebiti was inapplicable because the payment was not made under a
mistaken belief that a debt was due.
Instead, the payment fell within the condictio sine causa, as the bank's funds ended up
with the payee without a justifiable cause¹.
¹ Govender v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd. ² Willis Faber v Receiver of Revenue. ³ B & H Engineering v First
ASSIGNMENT 1 2025
DUE 13 MARCH 2025
SEMESTER 1 2025
, PVL3704 Assignment 01
Semester 01, 2025
Due date: 13 March 20
Question 1
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment
must have been sine causa.
Requirement that the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa
In the context of unjustified enrichment, the requirement that the enrichment must
have been sine causa (without legal cause) is fundamental. This principle ensures
that a party who receives a benefit without a justifiable reason can be compelled to
return it. Various case law illustrates how South African courts have interpreted this
requirement.
1. Govender v Standard Bank
This case is a pivotal authority in distinguishing between the condictio indebiti and
condictio sine causa specialis. The court held that:
A bank paying a cheque does not owe a debt to the payee; rather, the drawer of the
cheque is the party liable.
Since the payment was made after the cheque had been countermanded, the bank’s
payment was made without a legal cause.
The condictio indebiti was inapplicable because the payment was not made under a
mistaken belief that a debt was due.
Instead, the payment fell within the condictio sine causa, as the bank's funds ended up
with the payee without a justifiable cause¹.
¹ Govender v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd. ² Willis Faber v Receiver of Revenue. ³ B & H Engineering v First
