PVL3704
Assignment 1
Semester 1 2026
Due 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.
The requirement that the defendant must be enriched at the expense of the plaintiff is
a core element of unjustified enrichment liability in South African law. It means that
there must be a sufficient link between the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s gain. A
mere enrichment on the one side and a loss on the other is not enough. The enrichment
and impoverishment must correspond in a legally relevant way.
At its most basic level, this requirement asks whether the defendant’s enrichment was
obtained through a subtraction from the plaintiff’s estate. If the plaintiff has not been
diminished, or if the defendant’s gain came from another source, the requirement is not
satisfied.
South African courts have consistently emphasised that the enrichment must occur
directly or indirectly at the plaintiff’s expense. This principle was clearly stated in
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC, where the court explained that
enrichment liability is not aimed at reversing all unjust gains, but only those gains that
correlate with the plaintiff’s impoverishment (McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA)).
A classic example of enrichment at the plaintiff’s expense is where money is transferred
in error. If A mistakenly pays money into B’s bank account, B’s estate increases and A’s
estate decreases by the same amount. The enrichment is direct and clearly at A’s
expense. In such a case, the requirement is satisfied, and an enrichment action such as
the condictio indebiti may be available.
However, enrichment at the plaintiff’s expense does not always have to be direct. The
law also recognises indirect enrichment, provided that the link between the parties is
sufficiently close. This was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical (Pty) Ltd v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments (Pty) Ltd, where the court accepted that enrichment may still be
“at the expense of” the plaintiff even if a third party is involved, as long as the plaintiff’s
Assignment 1
Semester 1 2026
Due 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.
The requirement that the defendant must be enriched at the expense of the plaintiff is
a core element of unjustified enrichment liability in South African law. It means that
there must be a sufficient link between the plaintiff’s loss and the defendant’s gain. A
mere enrichment on the one side and a loss on the other is not enough. The enrichment
and impoverishment must correspond in a legally relevant way.
At its most basic level, this requirement asks whether the defendant’s enrichment was
obtained through a subtraction from the plaintiff’s estate. If the plaintiff has not been
diminished, or if the defendant’s gain came from another source, the requirement is not
satisfied.
South African courts have consistently emphasised that the enrichment must occur
directly or indirectly at the plaintiff’s expense. This principle was clearly stated in
McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC, where the court explained that
enrichment liability is not aimed at reversing all unjust gains, but only those gains that
correlate with the plaintiff’s impoverishment (McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance
Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA)).
A classic example of enrichment at the plaintiff’s expense is where money is transferred
in error. If A mistakenly pays money into B’s bank account, B’s estate increases and A’s
estate decreases by the same amount. The enrichment is direct and clearly at A’s
expense. In such a case, the requirement is satisfied, and an enrichment action such as
the condictio indebiti may be available.
However, enrichment at the plaintiff’s expense does not always have to be direct. The
law also recognises indirect enrichment, provided that the link between the parties is
sufficiently close. This was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical (Pty) Ltd v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments (Pty) Ltd, where the court accepted that enrichment may still be
“at the expense of” the plaintiff even if a third party is involved, as long as the plaintiff’s
