PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 1
(2025) – (827757) DUE 13 MARCH 2025
, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 1
(2025) – (827757) DUE 13 MARCH 2025 ️
QUESTION 1 Discuss (by reference to relevant
case law) the requirement that the enrichment
must have been sine causa.
The requirement that enrichment must have been sine causa
(without legal cause or justification) is a central element in the law of
unjustified enrichment. This principle ensures that a person who has
been enriched at the expense of another is only required to make
restitution if there is no valid legal ground (causa) for that
enrichment.
Meaning of sine causa
In South African law (as well as other civil law systems), a person
cannot be compelled to return something simply because they have
received a benefit — the enrichment must be unjustified, i.e.,
without a legal basis (sine causa). If there is a valid cause — such as a
contract, donation, or legal obligation — then the enrichment is iusta
causa (justified).
Relevant Case Law
1. Nortje v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)
Facts: Nortje erected a structure (a borehole) on another's land
under the mistaken belief that he had rights to the land.
Issue: Could Nortje claim compensation for the improvement?
Held: The court held that the enrichment must be sine causa.
Since the enrichment occurred due to Nortje’s mistake, and
there was no legal basis for the landowner to retain the benefit,
the court found in favour of an enrichment action.
(2025) – (827757) DUE 13 MARCH 2025
, PVL3704 ASSIGNMENT 1 – SEMESTER 1
(2025) – (827757) DUE 13 MARCH 2025 ️
QUESTION 1 Discuss (by reference to relevant
case law) the requirement that the enrichment
must have been sine causa.
The requirement that enrichment must have been sine causa
(without legal cause or justification) is a central element in the law of
unjustified enrichment. This principle ensures that a person who has
been enriched at the expense of another is only required to make
restitution if there is no valid legal ground (causa) for that
enrichment.
Meaning of sine causa
In South African law (as well as other civil law systems), a person
cannot be compelled to return something simply because they have
received a benefit — the enrichment must be unjustified, i.e.,
without a legal basis (sine causa). If there is a valid cause — such as a
contract, donation, or legal obligation — then the enrichment is iusta
causa (justified).
Relevant Case Law
1. Nortje v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)
Facts: Nortje erected a structure (a borehole) on another's land
under the mistaken belief that he had rights to the land.
Issue: Could Nortje claim compensation for the improvement?
Held: The court held that the enrichment must be sine causa.
Since the enrichment occurred due to Nortje’s mistake, and
there was no legal basis for the landowner to retain the benefit,
the court found in favour of an enrichment action.
