PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)..
DUE DATE: 13 March 2025..
PREVIEW:
QUESTION 1
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must have been sine
causa. (10)
ANSWER:
The Requirement That the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa. The principle of sine causa is a
fundamental requirement for a successful unjustified enrichment claim in South African law. The phrase
sine causa translates to “without legal cause” and refers to situations where a person has been enriched
at another’s expense without a valid legal reason to justify the enrichment. If the transfer of wealth or
benefit occurred pursuant to a legal obligation, such as a contractual agreement, statutory requirement,
or donation, the enrichment would not be regarded as unjustified, and a claim for restitution would fail.
However, if no lawful justification existed, the recipient is required to restore the benefit.
Legal Framework and Case Law on Sine Causa
The South African courts have developed the doctrine of unjustified enrichment through case law,
emphasizing the importance of proving that the enrichment was without legal cause.
One of the leading cases on this issue is McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482
(SCA). The court in this case held that enrichment is only unjustified if it was not lawfully due. If an
enrichment occurs pursuant to a valid contract or legal obligation, it is not sine causa, and the claim must
fail. This principle establishes that a plaintiff in an enrichment action must demonstrate that no legal
ground existed for the defendant to retain the benefit.
Disclaimer:
The materials provided are intended for educational and informational purposes only. They should not be
In African Diamond Exporters (Pty) Ltd v Barclays Bank 1957 (2) SA 428 (W), the court further refined
submitted as original work or used in violation of any academic institution's policies. The buyer is solely
the sine causa
responsible requirement,
for how holding
the materials that a mistaken payment or an undue performance of an
are used.
obligation meets the threshold for enrichment without legal cause. This case is significant because it
clarifies that an enrichment claim will succeed if the payer acted
ASSIGNMENT 1 (SEMESTER 1)..
DUE DATE: 13 March 2025..
PREVIEW:
QUESTION 1
Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must have been sine
causa. (10)
ANSWER:
The Requirement That the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa. The principle of sine causa is a
fundamental requirement for a successful unjustified enrichment claim in South African law. The phrase
sine causa translates to “without legal cause” and refers to situations where a person has been enriched
at another’s expense without a valid legal reason to justify the enrichment. If the transfer of wealth or
benefit occurred pursuant to a legal obligation, such as a contractual agreement, statutory requirement,
or donation, the enrichment would not be regarded as unjustified, and a claim for restitution would fail.
However, if no lawful justification existed, the recipient is required to restore the benefit.
Legal Framework and Case Law on Sine Causa
The South African courts have developed the doctrine of unjustified enrichment through case law,
emphasizing the importance of proving that the enrichment was without legal cause.
One of the leading cases on this issue is McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482
(SCA). The court in this case held that enrichment is only unjustified if it was not lawfully due. If an
enrichment occurs pursuant to a valid contract or legal obligation, it is not sine causa, and the claim must
fail. This principle establishes that a plaintiff in an enrichment action must demonstrate that no legal
ground existed for the defendant to retain the benefit.
Disclaimer:
The materials provided are intended for educational and informational purposes only. They should not be
In African Diamond Exporters (Pty) Ltd v Barclays Bank 1957 (2) SA 428 (W), the court further refined
submitted as original work or used in violation of any academic institution's policies. The buyer is solely
the sine causa
responsible requirement,
for how holding
the materials that a mistaken payment or an undue performance of an
are used.
obligation meets the threshold for enrichment without legal cause. This case is significant because it
clarifies that an enrichment claim will succeed if the payer acted
