PVL3704
Assignment 1
Semester 1
DUE: 20 MARCH 2026
, PVL3704: LAW OF UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND
ESTOPPEL
ASSIGNMENT 01 – FIRST SEMESTER 2026
DUE DATE: 20 MARCH 2026
University of South Africa (UNISA)
QUESTION 1 (15 marks)
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant's enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff, with reference to case law.
1. Introduction
For a plaintiff to succeed with a claim based on unjustified enrichment, four general
requirements must be satisfied: (1) the defendant must be enriched; (2) the plaintiff
must be impoverished; (3) the enrichment must be at the expense of the plaintiff; and
(4) the enrichment must be sine causa (without legal justification). This discussion
focuses on the third requirement that the defendant's enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff which is essentially a causation requirement linking the
plaintiff's loss to the defendant's gain.
These four requirements were authoritatively confirmed in St Helena Primary School
and Another v MEC: Department of Education, Free State Province and Another 2007
4 SA 16 (O), and further affirmed in Kudu Granite Operations (Pty) Ltd v Caterna Ltd
2003 5 SA 193 (SCA) and McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 3
SA 482 (SCA).
2. The Causation Requirement Explained
It is insufficient for a plaintiff merely to prove that the defendant is enriched and that
the plaintiff is impoverished there must be a causal link between the enrichment and
the impoverishment such that the defendant's gain flows directly from the plaintiff's
loss. In most straightforward cases, this causal link is self-evident: for example, where
A mistakenly pays money into B's bank account, B's enrichment is directly at A's
expense.
Assignment 1
Semester 1
DUE: 20 MARCH 2026
, PVL3704: LAW OF UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT LIABILITY AND
ESTOPPEL
ASSIGNMENT 01 – FIRST SEMESTER 2026
DUE DATE: 20 MARCH 2026
University of South Africa (UNISA)
QUESTION 1 (15 marks)
Discuss the general requirement that the defendant's enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff, with reference to case law.
1. Introduction
For a plaintiff to succeed with a claim based on unjustified enrichment, four general
requirements must be satisfied: (1) the defendant must be enriched; (2) the plaintiff
must be impoverished; (3) the enrichment must be at the expense of the plaintiff; and
(4) the enrichment must be sine causa (without legal justification). This discussion
focuses on the third requirement that the defendant's enrichment must have been at
the expense of the plaintiff which is essentially a causation requirement linking the
plaintiff's loss to the defendant's gain.
These four requirements were authoritatively confirmed in St Helena Primary School
and Another v MEC: Department of Education, Free State Province and Another 2007
4 SA 16 (O), and further affirmed in Kudu Granite Operations (Pty) Ltd v Caterna Ltd
2003 5 SA 193 (SCA) and McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 3
SA 482 (SCA).
2. The Causation Requirement Explained
It is insufficient for a plaintiff merely to prove that the defendant is enriched and that
the plaintiff is impoverished there must be a causal link between the enrichment and
the impoverishment such that the defendant's gain flows directly from the plaintiff's
loss. In most straightforward cases, this causal link is self-evident: for example, where
A mistakenly pays money into B's bank account, B's enrichment is directly at A's
expense.
