PVL3704 Assignment 1 2025 – Due 13 March 2025

PVL3704 Assignment 1 2025 – Due 13 March 2025

Question 1

Discuss (by reference to relevant case law) the requirement that the enrichment must have been sine causa.

Requirement that the Enrichment Must Have Been Sine Causa

In the context of unjustified enrichment, the requirement that the enrichment must have been sine causa (without legal cause) is fundamental. This principle ensures that a party who receives a benefit without a justifiable reason can be compelled to  return it. Various case law illustrates how South African courts have interpreted this requirement.

1. Govender v Standard Bank
This case is a pivotal authority in distinguishing between the condictio indebiti and condictio sine causa specialis. The court held that:  A bank paying a cheque does not owe a debt to the payee; rather, the drawer of the cheque is the party liable. Since the payment was made after the cheque had been countermanded, the bank’s payment was made without a legal cause. The condictio indebiti was inapplicable because the payment was not made under a
mistaken belief that a debt was due. Instead, the payment fell within the condictio sine causa, as the bank’s funds ended up with the payee without a justifiable cause¹….