PVL3704
UNIQUE NUMBER 855338
STUDENT NUMBER
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 1
, QUESTION 1
Answer
In principle the plaintiff is allowed to claim the amount he has been
impoverished, or the amount the defendant has been enriched,
whichever is the lesser,1 and the quantum of the enrichment claim is
calculated at the time the claim is instituted. That means that the
defendant is not liable for benefits that he due to his enrichment
could have gained, but didn’t. If the defendant’s enrichment has
been reduced or extinguished before the claim has been instituted,
his liability will also be reduced or extinguished. The onus to prove
non-enrichment lies with the defendant.
In four instances the quantum will be calculated sooner, meaning
before the date of institution of the action:
(a) At the moment the defendant becomes aware of enrichment;
(b) At an earlier stage if the defendant should have known that the
benefit wasn’t justified
(c) When the defendant fell into mora; and an earlier date if the
defendant acted mala fide. These exceptions do not apply in the case
of minors.
In quantifying the claim all positive and negative side-effects should
be taken into account. Interest earned on money in the hands of the
defendant before litis contestatio cannot be claimed by the plaintiff,
but after mora the plaintiff can claim mora interest. If the defendant
spent the money on something he would not have done if it wasn’t
for the enrichment, he can raise the defence of non-enrichment.
However, if all or part of what he spent the money on (eg goods) is
still of value and in his hands, he must offer the goods or the value of
1
UNISA Study Guide 1, par 1.1.4
UNIQUE NUMBER 855338
STUDENT NUMBER
ASSIGNMENT NUMBER 1
, QUESTION 1
Answer
In principle the plaintiff is allowed to claim the amount he has been
impoverished, or the amount the defendant has been enriched,
whichever is the lesser,1 and the quantum of the enrichment claim is
calculated at the time the claim is instituted. That means that the
defendant is not liable for benefits that he due to his enrichment
could have gained, but didn’t. If the defendant’s enrichment has
been reduced or extinguished before the claim has been instituted,
his liability will also be reduced or extinguished. The onus to prove
non-enrichment lies with the defendant.
In four instances the quantum will be calculated sooner, meaning
before the date of institution of the action:
(a) At the moment the defendant becomes aware of enrichment;
(b) At an earlier stage if the defendant should have known that the
benefit wasn’t justified
(c) When the defendant fell into mora; and an earlier date if the
defendant acted mala fide. These exceptions do not apply in the case
of minors.
In quantifying the claim all positive and negative side-effects should
be taken into account. Interest earned on money in the hands of the
defendant before litis contestatio cannot be claimed by the plaintiff,
but after mora the plaintiff can claim mora interest. If the defendant
spent the money on something he would not have done if it wasn’t
for the enrichment, he can raise the defence of non-enrichment.
However, if all or part of what he spent the money on (eg goods) is
still of value and in his hands, he must offer the goods or the value of
1
UNISA Study Guide 1, par 1.1.4
