PVL3704
ASSIGNMENT 01 SEMESTER 01
2026
GUIDED ANSWERS, REFERENCES AND
EXPLANATIONS
DUE DATE: 20 MARCH
2026
, Question 1:
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15)
In South African law of unjustified enrichment, there is no general enrichment action;
instead, liability arises under specific recognised condictiones or actions, such as the
condictio indebiti, condictio causa data causa non secuta, condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam, and condictio sine causa specialis.1 A core requirement across these actions is
that the defendant's enrichment must occur at the expense of the plaintiff. This element
establishes the necessary link between the parties, ensuring that enrichment liability is
corrective and restores an imbalance caused by one party's gain at another's direct or
indirect cost.
The phrase "at the expense of the plaintiff" requires a causal connection between the
defendant's enrichment and the plaintiff's impoverishment. In most straightforward cases,
such as payment by mistake under the condictio indebiti, the link is direct: the plaintiff
transfers money or property to the defendant, resulting in the defendant's gain and the
plaintiff's corresponding loss. The impoverishment need not always be a diminution in the
plaintiff's patrimony in a strict sense, but there must be a transfer of value or benefit from
the plaintiff to the defendant.2
South African courts have emphasised that this requirement prevents enrichment claims
where the plaintiff's loss and the defendant's gain are not sufficiently connected. For
instance, in indirect enrichment scenarios — where a third party is involved — the courts
have been cautious. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T), the court
examined whether a subcontractor could claim enrichment against the landowner when the
main contractor became insolvent after receiving payment but failing to pay the sub. The
court held that there was no direct "at the expense of" link, as the landowner had paid the
1
Insolvency law analogies aside; see generally De Vos, Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid and modern texts like Visser,
Unjustified Enrichment.
2
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [general principles].
ASSIGNMENT 01 SEMESTER 01
2026
GUIDED ANSWERS, REFERENCES AND
EXPLANATIONS
DUE DATE: 20 MARCH
2026
, Question 1:
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant’s enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff. Refer in your answer to case law. (15)
In South African law of unjustified enrichment, there is no general enrichment action;
instead, liability arises under specific recognised condictiones or actions, such as the
condictio indebiti, condictio causa data causa non secuta, condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam, and condictio sine causa specialis.1 A core requirement across these actions is
that the defendant's enrichment must occur at the expense of the plaintiff. This element
establishes the necessary link between the parties, ensuring that enrichment liability is
corrective and restores an imbalance caused by one party's gain at another's direct or
indirect cost.
The phrase "at the expense of the plaintiff" requires a causal connection between the
defendant's enrichment and the plaintiff's impoverishment. In most straightforward cases,
such as payment by mistake under the condictio indebiti, the link is direct: the plaintiff
transfers money or property to the defendant, resulting in the defendant's gain and the
plaintiff's corresponding loss. The impoverishment need not always be a diminution in the
plaintiff's patrimony in a strict sense, but there must be a transfer of value or benefit from
the plaintiff to the defendant.2
South African courts have emphasised that this requirement prevents enrichment claims
where the plaintiff's loss and the defendant's gain are not sufficiently connected. For
instance, in indirect enrichment scenarios — where a third party is involved — the courts
have been cautious. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T), the court
examined whether a subcontractor could claim enrichment against the landowner when the
main contractor became insolvent after receiving payment but failing to pay the sub. The
court held that there was no direct "at the expense of" link, as the landowner had paid the
1
Insolvency law analogies aside; see generally De Vos, Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid and modern texts like Visser,
Unjustified Enrichment.
2
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) para [general principles].
