Name: Sphumlile Biyela
Student number: 46167919
Module name: Unjustified Enrichment Liability and Estoppel
Module code: PVL3704
Semester: 01
Assignment: 01
Assignment due date: 29 March 2025
Institution: University of South Africa
Collage: College of Law
Question 1
Requirement of Sine Causa Enrichment
The requirement that enrichment must have been "sine causa" means that the
enrichment must have occurred without a legal cause or justification. In other words,
the recipient of the enrichment should not have provided anything or performance of
value in return for the enrichment received. In South African law legal binding
obligation can be created by contract or delict, which means if that enrichment is sine
causa if it occurred without any contractual or delictual liability.
According to De Vos sine causa element can be defined as enrichment is unjustified
when there is no existing sufficient legal obligation or legal ground for the transfer of
value from one estate to another or for retention of such value.
Reason for sine causa requirement is that its act as a limiting factor and no one
would be able to make a profit at the expense of another if there is no limiting factor,
enrichment must be justified.( Study guide 1 PVL3704: 25)
Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A)
Legal question:
Whether the owner of a property is unduly enriched by improvements made to his/her
property by a contractor who has concluded an agreement with a third party for the
work.
Facts:
158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments is an investment company that owned a plot in
Johannesburg. It hired a contracting company to develop that plot. That company
subcontracted the electrical work to Buzzard Electrical. Buzzard Electrical completed
the work of the plot which had brought about necessary or useful improvements equal
in value to the contract work sum with the original contractor. The contractor company
was then placed in liquidation.
Finding that it was bound by the decision of the full bench in Gouws v Jester Pools
(Pty) Ltd 1963 (3) SA 563, the court upheld an exception raised by the investment
company that, in fact it was the owner who was contractually obliged pay the contractor
and therefore any enrichment was at the expense of the contractor company and not
Buzzard.
On appeal, the Appellate Division held that the owner received nothing more that
he/she had contracted with the original contractor. The subcontractor could have
enforced his contractual rights against the original developer. The contract with the
original contractor was the causa of the enrichment of the owner and therefore the
enrichment of the owner was not sine causa. (SAFLII:online)
In Brooklyn House case the Appellate Division allowed for an enrichment lien to have
taken place in circumstances closely analogous to those in which an enrichment action
was refused in the Gouws case, without, however, overruling the findings of the Gouws
case. In this case B bought furniture on hire purchase from C. In this contract C
reserved the ownership of the furniture until the payment of the final instalment. B in
breach of the contract stored the furniture with A. When C subsequently cancelled the
hire-purchase contract, C brought a rei vindicatio against A to recover her furniture. A
contended that he had a lien over the furniture until he was paid for the storage, which
contention was upheld by the Appellate Division. (Study guide 1 PVL3704:24)
This principle is reflected in South African law, particularly in the context of
unjustified enrichment. In the case of Basson v Chilwan (1993), the court
emphasized the requirement of "sine causa" requiremet in unjustified enrichment
claims. The court held that for enrichment to be unjustified, it must lack a valid legal
reason or cause.
Overall, after looking at these above mentioned cases it is very clear that there must
be a causal link between the enrichment of the defendant and the impoverishment of
the plaintiff concerned. In matters of indirect enrichment l conquer with the views of
Van der Walt who stipulated that the “at-the expense-of” requirement is satisfied
once assets have been directly transferred from A’s estate to that of C. This means
that assets have to pass directly from A to C.
Question 2
A will be to reclaim the R300 000 he paid to the Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
Municipality using the conditio indebiti remedy
The Requirements for conditio indebiti
When an impoverished party reclaim performance using conditio indebiti remedy.
He or she must satisfy the following requirements:
 The impoverished party or plaintiff must have transferred something in
ownership to another.
 Must have taken place as result of mistake and the transferor must have
believed that the performance was due.
 The mistake must be reasonable (iustus error). (Study guide 1 PVL3704: 36)
However in terms of the South African law when a person transfer performance
under duress ad is well aware of the fact that performance is not owing or undue.
The application of the conditio indebiti in such circumstances therefore form an
important exception to the general requirements of conditio indebiti that are
mentioned above.
They are also requirements that needs to be in place in order for this exception to
come in place.
For this exception to be recognised the plaintiff needs to prove that:
 The payment was not owing, in this case A knew that performance was
undue.
 Payment was made involuntary under some kind of threat, in this case A wa
threatened that they will cut his electricity if the account is not settled, that
threat by the municipality can or is regarded as duress.

Plaintiff must have protested the payment at the time of payment, A sent the
letter of protest immediately after making the payment.(Study guide 1
PVL3704:50)
Port Elizabeth v Uitenhage Municipality is a perfect example of a case where payment
was made under duress and under the presumption that the thing will be reclaimed if
it later proves that it was undue.
Port Elizabeth Municipality v Uitenhage Municipality 1971 (1) SA 724 (A)
The legal question here was, Whether a municipality can recover payments made
under duress?
Facts
The Port Elizabeth Municipality (Port Elizabeth) and the Uitenhage Municipality
(Uitenhage) were two neighboring municipalities. Port Elizabeth supplied water to
Uitenhage under a contract.
In 1966, Port Elizabeth increased the water tariff. Uitenhage objected to the
increase, arguing that it was unreasonable. However, Uitenhage continued to pay
the increased tariff under protest.
In 1969, Uitenhage sued Port Elizabeth for a refund of the money it had paid under
protest. Port Elizabeth argued that Uitenhage was not entitled to a refund because it
had not been under duress when it paid the increased tariff.
Held:
The Court held that Uitenhage was entitled to a refund of the money it had paid
under protest. The Court reasoned that Uitenhage had been under duress because it
had feared that Port Elizabeth would cut off its water supply if it did not pay the
increased tariff.
The Court also found that Port Elizabeth had been aware of Uitenhage's protest and
that it had not acted in good faith when it refused to refund the money.(SAFLIL:
online)
CIR v Fist National Industial Bank Ltd 1990 3 SA 641 (A)
The decision in CIR v First National Industrial Bank Ltd 1990 (3) SA 641 (A) also
provides a good example of payments made under duress.
In this matter, a dispute had arisen between the Commissioner of Revenue and FNB
on whether a particular card scheme attracted stamp duties or not. The Commissioner
insisted that the FNB pay the duties and FNB subsequently did so under protest.
The court then found that no stamp duties where in fact payable and therefore the
money had been repaid to FNB on the basis of unjustified enrichment
In closure, after the above discussion of the requirements and the case law, it is
clear that A meets the requirements of the conditio indebiti and those of the
exception. So I believe his or her action for conditio indebiti should be successful.