, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE ONLY
Question 1
1. Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must have
been sine causa.
The Sine Causa Requirement in Unjustified Enrichment Law
Introduction
The requirement that enrichment must be sine causa (without legal cause) serves as a critical limiting
factor in unjustified enrichment law. Without this requirement, the concept of liability would be so
broad that it would effectively prohibit all commercial transactions and legitimate profit-making.¹
The sine causa requirement ensures that liability for enrichment arises only where it would be
inequitable to allow a person to retain benefits obtained at another's expense.²
Definition and Content of the Sine Causa Requirement
Van der Walt's Definition
Van der Walt defines the requirement as follows: "Enrichment is, in principle, sine causa if there is
no obligation in existence between the enriched person and the impoverished person in terms of
which the enriched person could lay claim to the transfer of the assets concerned."³
De Vos's Critique and Alternative Definition
De Vos criticises Van der Walt's definition for being too narrow, contending that it incorrectly
implies that the only justification for enrichment can be the existence of an obligation between the
enriched and impoverished parties.⁴ As De Vos points out, if this definition were accepted, situations
such as receiving property through prescription or in terms of a court order would constitute
unjustified enrichment—even though our law clearly regards such transfers as justified.⁵
De Vos therefore proposes a broader definition: "Enrichment is unjustified when there is no
sufficient legal ground for the transfer of value from one estate to another, or for the retention of
such value."⁶ This definition more accurately captures the essence of the requirement, as it considers
any legally recognised ground—whether contract, court order, prescription, or statute—as sufficient
justification for the transfer or retention of value.
Application in Case Law
Greenbills Producers (Pty) Ltd v Benjamin
In Greenbills Producers (Pty) Ltd v Benjamin 1960 4 SA 188 (E), the plaintiff company entered into
a contract with the defendants for the keeping and sale of sheep, with profits to be divided on a fixed
basis. The company was provisionally wound up, rendering the contract void—a fact unknown to
both parties. When the company later demanded removal of the sheep, it brought an enrichment
action based on the defendants' use of the land from the date the contract ceased to exist.⁷
¹ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
² PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
³ Van der Walt JC "Die condictio indebiti as verrykingsaksie" 1966 THRHR 222, quoted in PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁴ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁵ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁶ De Vos W Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg (Juta Cape Town 1987) 353, quoted in PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁷ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 28.
Question 1
1. Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must have
been sine causa.
The Sine Causa Requirement in Unjustified Enrichment Law
Introduction
The requirement that enrichment must be sine causa (without legal cause) serves as a critical limiting
factor in unjustified enrichment law. Without this requirement, the concept of liability would be so
broad that it would effectively prohibit all commercial transactions and legitimate profit-making.¹
The sine causa requirement ensures that liability for enrichment arises only where it would be
inequitable to allow a person to retain benefits obtained at another's expense.²
Definition and Content of the Sine Causa Requirement
Van der Walt's Definition
Van der Walt defines the requirement as follows: "Enrichment is, in principle, sine causa if there is
no obligation in existence between the enriched person and the impoverished person in terms of
which the enriched person could lay claim to the transfer of the assets concerned."³
De Vos's Critique and Alternative Definition
De Vos criticises Van der Walt's definition for being too narrow, contending that it incorrectly
implies that the only justification for enrichment can be the existence of an obligation between the
enriched and impoverished parties.⁴ As De Vos points out, if this definition were accepted, situations
such as receiving property through prescription or in terms of a court order would constitute
unjustified enrichment—even though our law clearly regards such transfers as justified.⁵
De Vos therefore proposes a broader definition: "Enrichment is unjustified when there is no
sufficient legal ground for the transfer of value from one estate to another, or for the retention of
such value."⁶ This definition more accurately captures the essence of the requirement, as it considers
any legally recognised ground—whether contract, court order, prescription, or statute—as sufficient
justification for the transfer or retention of value.
Application in Case Law
Greenbills Producers (Pty) Ltd v Benjamin
In Greenbills Producers (Pty) Ltd v Benjamin 1960 4 SA 188 (E), the plaintiff company entered into
a contract with the defendants for the keeping and sale of sheep, with profits to be divided on a fixed
basis. The company was provisionally wound up, rendering the contract void—a fact unknown to
both parties. When the company later demanded removal of the sheep, it brought an enrichment
action based on the defendants' use of the land from the date the contract ceased to exist.⁷
¹ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
² PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
³ Van der Walt JC "Die condictio indebiti as verrykingsaksie" 1966 THRHR 222, quoted in PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁴ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁵ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁶ De Vos W Verrykingsaanspreeklikheid in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg (Juta Cape Town 1987) 353, quoted in PVL3704 Study Guide, p 27.
⁷ PVL3704 Study Guide, p 28.
