PVL3704 Assignment 1
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13
March 2025
100% GUARANTEEED
, PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13 March
2025
Question 1 Discuss (by reference to relevant case law)
the requirement that the enrichment must have been
sine causa. (10)
The requirement that enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal cause)
is a fundamental element in the South African law of unjustified enrichment. This
means that the defendant must have been enriched at the expense of the plaintiff
without a valid legal basis for the transfer or retention of the benefit. Courts have
developed this principle through various cases, which help clarify its application.
Key Case Law on Sine Causa
1. McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482
(SCA)
o In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that enrichment
must be sine causa for an unjustified enrichment claim to succeed.
The court found that if there was a valid contractual or legal
justification for the enrichment, a claim in unjustified enrichment
would not succeed.
2. Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Marnitz NO 2005 (1) SA 441 (SCA)
o The court held that a party cannot claim enrichment if the benefit was
conferred pursuant to a valid contract. If a contract exists, the remedy
lies in contract law rather than enrichment.
3. Brinks SA (Pty) Ltd v Singh and Another 1999 (2) SA 713 (D)
o This case involved a mistaken payment, and the court ruled that where
a payment is made in error, without a valid reason (sine causa), the
recipient is obliged to return the money.
4. Kelly v Randali 1961 (3) SA 545 (A)
o The court emphasized that an enrichment claim will fail if the
enrichment was based on a lawful agreement, highlighting that
enrichment without legal cause is essential for a successful claim.
5. Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264
(A)
(COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13
March 2025
100% GUARANTEEED
, PVL3704 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE
ANSWERS) Semester 1 2025 - DUE 13 March
2025
Question 1 Discuss (by reference to relevant case law)
the requirement that the enrichment must have been
sine causa. (10)
The requirement that enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal cause)
is a fundamental element in the South African law of unjustified enrichment. This
means that the defendant must have been enriched at the expense of the plaintiff
without a valid legal basis for the transfer or retention of the benefit. Courts have
developed this principle through various cases, which help clarify its application.
Key Case Law on Sine Causa
1. McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482
(SCA)
o In this case, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that enrichment
must be sine causa for an unjustified enrichment claim to succeed.
The court found that if there was a valid contractual or legal
justification for the enrichment, a claim in unjustified enrichment
would not succeed.
2. Nissan South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Marnitz NO 2005 (1) SA 441 (SCA)
o The court held that a party cannot claim enrichment if the benefit was
conferred pursuant to a valid contract. If a contract exists, the remedy
lies in contract law rather than enrichment.
3. Brinks SA (Pty) Ltd v Singh and Another 1999 (2) SA 713 (D)
o This case involved a mistaken payment, and the court ruled that where
a payment is made in error, without a valid reason (sine causa), the
recipient is obliged to return the money.
4. Kelly v Randali 1961 (3) SA 545 (A)
o The court emphasized that an enrichment claim will fail if the
enrichment was based on a lawful agreement, highlighting that
enrichment without legal cause is essential for a successful claim.
5. Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264
(A)
