⋆ J ⋆
PVL3704: Enrichment Liability and Estoppel
May/June Examination 2026 Revision Guide
Covering Past Papers: 2023, 2024 & 2025
⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆
Law of Obligations – Faculty of Law (UNISA)
Exam Revision Guide
PVL3704
Module Code:
Enrichment Liability and Estoppel
Module Name:
May/June 2023, May/June 2024, May/June 2025
Papers Covered:
May/June Examination 2026
Prepared for:
100 per paper
Total Marks:
3 Hours
Duration:
Study all questions and answers thoroughly. Focus on understanding legal principles
and their application to factual scenarios. Include relevant case law in your exam
answers.
Exam Revision Notes | PVL3704 | UNISA | 2023–2025
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
PART 1: MAY/JUNE 2025 EXAM PAPER
Date: 15 May 2025 | 6 Questions | 100 Marks | 3 Hours
First Examiner: Mr KA Seanego Second Examiner: Prof J Knobel
Page 2 of 36
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
2025 – Question 1 [20 marks]
(a) [10 marks]
Question: Discuss the general requirements for a successful unjustified enrichment
claim. Your answer must include a discussion of each requirement with reference to rele-
vant case law.
Answer: Introduction: Unjustified (undue) enrichment is a source of obligation in
South African law. To succeed with a general enrichment action, the plaintiff must prove
four requirements. The leading cases establishing these requirements include Nortje en
’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A).
1. The defendant must be enriched
Enrichment means an increase in the defendant’s estate. It includes:
• A positive increase in assets (e.g. receiving money or property);
• The avoidance of an expense that would otherwise have been incurred;
• A decrease in liabilities.
The comparison is between the defendant’s current financial position and the posi-
tion the defendant would have been in had the enrichment not occurred.
Case Law Example
In Nortjie v Pool the court noted that the finding of clay on land only con-
stitutes enrichment if the knowledge of its presence increased the market
value of the property – the mere discovery is insufficient. UNISA’s view is
that moral enrichment (e.g. typewriting lessons in Tanne v Foggit) does not
increase the estate and therefore does not constitute enrichment.
2. The plaintiff must be impoverished
The plaintiff’s estate must have decreased. The amount recoverable is the lesser
of the enrichment and the impoverishment. Both favourable and detrimental side
effects are taken into account when measuring impoverishment.
3. The enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff (causal
link)
A direct causal link is required between the enrichment and the impoverishment.
It is not enough that the defendant is enriched and the plaintiff impoverished – the
Page 3 of 36
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
enrichment must flow from the plaintiff’s impoverishment.
Case Law Example
In Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264
(A), the court confirmed that there must be a direct link – enrichment of the
defendant at the expense of third parties does not give the plaintiff a claim.
4. The enrichment must be unjustified (sine causa / without legal ground)
The enrichment must lack a legal cause (“causa”) justifying the retention of the ben-
efit. If the defendant has a valid legal ground (e.g. a valid contract) to retain the
enrichment, the enrichment is not unjustified.
Key Concept
The four requirements are cumulative – all four must be satisfied. The plain-
tiff bears the onus to prove each requirement on a balance of probabilities.
(b) [10 marks]
Question: A local municipality erroneously and contrary to its own policy issues a trad-
ing licence to X for an area where such licences should not have been issued. X relies on
the licence and establishes a business at significant cost. The municipality then revokes
the licence. X argues that the municipality is estopped from revoking the licence. Advise X
whether estoppel will succeed on these facts. Refer to relevant case law.
Answer: Issue: Whether estoppel can be successfully raised against the municipality.
Requirements for Estoppel:
1. Misrepresentation: The municipality created a false belief by issuing the licence
contrary to its own policy. This constitutes a positive representation that X was
entitled to the licence.
2. Fault: The misrepresentation must be negligent or intentional. The municipal-
ity acted negligently by issuing the licence contrary to policy – this requirement is
satisfied.
3. Reasonable reliance (causation): X acted on the representation and established
a business at significant cost. There is a causal link between the representation and
Page 4 of 36
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
X’s change in position.
4. Prejudice: X will suffer prejudice (financial loss from the establishment of the
business) if the municipality is allowed to resile from its representation.
Special consideration – Estoppel against state bodies:
Watch Out
A crucial issue is whether estoppel can operate against a public authority acting
ultra vires. In Rahim v Minister of Justice 1964 (4) SA 630 (N) and confirmed
in later cases, the courts have generally held that estoppel cannot be used to
compel a public authority to do something that is unlawful or beyond its powers.
Since issuing the licence was contrary to the municipality’s own policy, the act
may have been ultra vires.
Application: X’s estoppel claim is likely to fail because the municipality’s representa-
tion was ultra vires (contrary to its own policy). An estoppel cannot override the law
or force an authority to maintain an unlawful act. Courts have repeatedly held that
estoppel cannot be used to compel adherence to an unlawful state of affairs.
Conclusion: X’s estoppel defence will in all likelihood not succeed. The municipal-
ity acted contrary to its own policy; allowing estoppel would compel it to maintain an
unlawful position.
Exam Tip
Always identify the ultra vires issue when estoppel is raised against a public
authority. State this clearly and cite a relevant authority (Rahim v Minister of
Justice or similar).
Page 5 of 36
, PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
2025 – Question 2 [15 marks]
Question: Discuss the condictio indebiti as an enrichment action. In your discussion
explain: (a) when it is available; (b) its requirements; and (c) the defence of change of
position (also called the “enrichment has diminished” defence). Refer to relevant case law
and examples.
Answer: (a) When the condictio indebiti is available:
The condictio indebiti is available where a person has made a payment or delivered a
thing under the mistaken belief that a debt was owed, when in fact no such debt existed.
The performance is “undue” (indebiti) because there was no legal obligation to make it.
Key Concept
Condictio indebiti = “action for the recovery of something not owed.” It is the
principal enrichment action in South African law for recovering payments made
under mistake.
(b) Requirements:
1. Transfer of ownership: The plaintiff must have transferred ownership of money
or a thing to the defendant. A mere loan of use (commodatum) is insufficient – title
must have passed.
2. Payment was not owing (indebiti): The plaintiff must prove that the perfor-
mance was not due – there was no valid legal obligation to make the payment.
3. Excusable mistake (iustus error): The payment must have been made under a
reasonable (excusable) mistake, whether of fact or of law.
• A mistake is iustus if a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have
made the same mistake.
• Where a party knowingly pays a debt not owed, this is treated as a donation
and the condictio indebiti is unavailable – unless the payment was made under
duress and protest (see Tucker’s Land and Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd v
Hovis 1980 (1) SA 645 (A)).
Page 6 of 36
PVL3704: Enrichment Liability and Estoppel
May/June Examination 2026 Revision Guide
Covering Past Papers: 2023, 2024 & 2025
⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆ ⋄ ⋆
Law of Obligations – Faculty of Law (UNISA)
Exam Revision Guide
PVL3704
Module Code:
Enrichment Liability and Estoppel
Module Name:
May/June 2023, May/June 2024, May/June 2025
Papers Covered:
May/June Examination 2026
Prepared for:
100 per paper
Total Marks:
3 Hours
Duration:
Study all questions and answers thoroughly. Focus on understanding legal principles
and their application to factual scenarios. Include relevant case law in your exam
answers.
Exam Revision Notes | PVL3704 | UNISA | 2023–2025
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
PART 1: MAY/JUNE 2025 EXAM PAPER
Date: 15 May 2025 | 6 Questions | 100 Marks | 3 Hours
First Examiner: Mr KA Seanego Second Examiner: Prof J Knobel
Page 2 of 36
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
2025 – Question 1 [20 marks]
(a) [10 marks]
Question: Discuss the general requirements for a successful unjustified enrichment
claim. Your answer must include a discussion of each requirement with reference to rele-
vant case law.
Answer: Introduction: Unjustified (undue) enrichment is a source of obligation in
South African law. To succeed with a general enrichment action, the plaintiff must prove
four requirements. The leading cases establishing these requirements include Nortje en
’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A).
1. The defendant must be enriched
Enrichment means an increase in the defendant’s estate. It includes:
• A positive increase in assets (e.g. receiving money or property);
• The avoidance of an expense that would otherwise have been incurred;
• A decrease in liabilities.
The comparison is between the defendant’s current financial position and the posi-
tion the defendant would have been in had the enrichment not occurred.
Case Law Example
In Nortjie v Pool the court noted that the finding of clay on land only con-
stitutes enrichment if the knowledge of its presence increased the market
value of the property – the mere discovery is insufficient. UNISA’s view is
that moral enrichment (e.g. typewriting lessons in Tanne v Foggit) does not
increase the estate and therefore does not constitute enrichment.
2. The plaintiff must be impoverished
The plaintiff’s estate must have decreased. The amount recoverable is the lesser
of the enrichment and the impoverishment. Both favourable and detrimental side
effects are taken into account when measuring impoverishment.
3. The enrichment must have been at the expense of the plaintiff (causal
link)
A direct causal link is required between the enrichment and the impoverishment.
It is not enough that the defendant is enriched and the plaintiff impoverished – the
Page 3 of 36
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
enrichment must flow from the plaintiff’s impoverishment.
Case Law Example
In Brooklyn House Furnishers (Pty) Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 (3) SA 264
(A), the court confirmed that there must be a direct link – enrichment of the
defendant at the expense of third parties does not give the plaintiff a claim.
4. The enrichment must be unjustified (sine causa / without legal ground)
The enrichment must lack a legal cause (“causa”) justifying the retention of the ben-
efit. If the defendant has a valid legal ground (e.g. a valid contract) to retain the
enrichment, the enrichment is not unjustified.
Key Concept
The four requirements are cumulative – all four must be satisfied. The plain-
tiff bears the onus to prove each requirement on a balance of probabilities.
(b) [10 marks]
Question: A local municipality erroneously and contrary to its own policy issues a trad-
ing licence to X for an area where such licences should not have been issued. X relies on
the licence and establishes a business at significant cost. The municipality then revokes
the licence. X argues that the municipality is estopped from revoking the licence. Advise X
whether estoppel will succeed on these facts. Refer to relevant case law.
Answer: Issue: Whether estoppel can be successfully raised against the municipality.
Requirements for Estoppel:
1. Misrepresentation: The municipality created a false belief by issuing the licence
contrary to its own policy. This constitutes a positive representation that X was
entitled to the licence.
2. Fault: The misrepresentation must be negligent or intentional. The municipal-
ity acted negligently by issuing the licence contrary to policy – this requirement is
satisfied.
3. Reasonable reliance (causation): X acted on the representation and established
a business at significant cost. There is a causal link between the representation and
Page 4 of 36
,PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
X’s change in position.
4. Prejudice: X will suffer prejudice (financial loss from the establishment of the
business) if the municipality is allowed to resile from its representation.
Special consideration – Estoppel against state bodies:
Watch Out
A crucial issue is whether estoppel can operate against a public authority acting
ultra vires. In Rahim v Minister of Justice 1964 (4) SA 630 (N) and confirmed
in later cases, the courts have generally held that estoppel cannot be used to
compel a public authority to do something that is unlawful or beyond its powers.
Since issuing the licence was contrary to the municipality’s own policy, the act
may have been ultra vires.
Application: X’s estoppel claim is likely to fail because the municipality’s representa-
tion was ultra vires (contrary to its own policy). An estoppel cannot override the law
or force an authority to maintain an unlawful act. Courts have repeatedly held that
estoppel cannot be used to compel adherence to an unlawful state of affairs.
Conclusion: X’s estoppel defence will in all likelihood not succeed. The municipal-
ity acted contrary to its own policy; allowing estoppel would compel it to maintain an
unlawful position.
Exam Tip
Always identify the ultra vires issue when estoppel is raised against a public
authority. State this clearly and cite a relevant authority (Rahim v Minister of
Justice or similar).
Page 5 of 36
, PVL3704 | Enrichment Liability & Estoppel – Exam Revision May/June 2023–2025
2025 – Question 2 [15 marks]
Question: Discuss the condictio indebiti as an enrichment action. In your discussion
explain: (a) when it is available; (b) its requirements; and (c) the defence of change of
position (also called the “enrichment has diminished” defence). Refer to relevant case law
and examples.
Answer: (a) When the condictio indebiti is available:
The condictio indebiti is available where a person has made a payment or delivered a
thing under the mistaken belief that a debt was owed, when in fact no such debt existed.
The performance is “undue” (indebiti) because there was no legal obligation to make it.
Key Concept
Condictio indebiti = “action for the recovery of something not owed.” It is the
principal enrichment action in South African law for recovering payments made
under mistake.
(b) Requirements:
1. Transfer of ownership: The plaintiff must have transferred ownership of money
or a thing to the defendant. A mere loan of use (commodatum) is insufficient – title
must have passed.
2. Payment was not owing (indebiti): The plaintiff must prove that the perfor-
mance was not due – there was no valid legal obligation to make the payment.
3. Excusable mistake (iustus error): The payment must have been made under a
reasonable (excusable) mistake, whether of fact or of law.
• A mistake is iustus if a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have
made the same mistake.
• Where a party knowingly pays a debt not owed, this is treated as a donation
and the condictio indebiti is unavailable – unless the payment was made under
duress and protest (see Tucker’s Land and Development Corporation (Pty) Ltd v
Hovis 1980 (1) SA 645 (A)).
Page 6 of 36
