lOMoARcPSD|4162958

PVL3704 MCQ 2009 to 2020

Law Of Enrichment Liabilty And Estoppel (University of South Africa)

Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

MCQ’s – 2009 to 2019:

Question 1
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement for
enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished.
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause.
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully.
4. The defendant must have been enriched.
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of the defendant.
Feedback: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with unjustified enrichment law,
although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. Make sure that you
understand the difference between unlawfulness and the requirement that the enrichment must have taken
place unjustifiably, ie without a valid underlying cause. See your Study guide pp 13, 21 ff.
(1)

Question 2
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct.
Feedback: See the discussion of the requirements for the condictio indebiti on pp 32-33 as well as
the answer to the previous question. (1)

Question 3
A has paid B an amount of R 40,000 by cheque. Before B could present the cheque to his bank, A
countermanded the cheque because B had delivered defective goods to him. X, a clerk at A’s bank
failed to notice the countermand notice and payment of the amount was made to B.
Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the possible claims by A or
the bank:
1. B has been enriched at the expense of the bank, because the bank had no mandate
to make a payment from A’s account.
2. B has been enriched at the expense of A, from whose account the payment was made.
3. A has an enrichment claim against B for the full amount of R 40,000.
4. A has an enrichment claim against B for a reduced amount.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
Feedback: If the bank makes a payment on a countermanded cheque, the bank has no mandate
from its client to make the payment from the client’s account. The bank has an obligation to reverse
the payment under these circumstances. The bank, however, does have
an enrichment claim against the payee in so far as the payee has been enriched. See your Study
guide pp 50-51; 73 ff. (1)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Question 4
E is an employee of M. E is paid a monthly salary of R 20,000. On 15 June M summarily dismissed E
because of theft of company assets. The dismissal was lawful in terms of the employment contract
and employment law.
Indicate which statement best explains the possible claim that E might have against
his employer:
1. E has no claim for any part of his salary.
2. E has a contractual claim for the full amount of his salary for June.
3. E has a pro rata claim for half of his salary of June based on the principle of unjustified
enrichment.
4. E has a contractual claim for a pro rata part of his salary for June.
5. E has a claim for the full amount of his salary for June based on the principle of unjustified
enrichment. Feedback: Although the approach to award an enrichment claim under these
circumstances has been criticized, the leading case of Spencer v Gostelow is authority that the
employee has an enrichment claim in these circumstances. See your Study guide pp 138-139. (1)

A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern Cape, the
vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair the vehicle at a cost
of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and completes his trip. He departs
for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.

Question 5
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority
on which it is based?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons
1970 3 SA 264 (A).
Feedback: There are two approaches on the issue whether the garage has an enrichment claim under
these circumstances: In the Gouws case the court held that the owner of the property was not
enriched at the expense of the person making the improvements or attachments, because that person
has a contractual claim against the lessee. The decision in the Gouws case was left open in the
Buzzard Electrical decision. The Brooklyn House Furnishers decision does not deal with this issue.
See also the approach adopted in the Hubby’s Investments case. See your Study guide pp 17 ff. (1)

Question 6
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he can exercise it?
1. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has been paid for its
necessary expenses.
2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the full
contract price.
3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B.
4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be exercised only against the
creditor.
5. C has no retention right under these circumstances.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Feedback: The garage cannot exercise a debtor-creditor lien against the owner as there is no
contractual relationship between them. The garage may have an enrichment lien for necessary
expenses against the owner in terms of the decision in the Brooklyn House Furnisher’s case.
Although one may argue that C has no retention right at all, Answer 1 is in line with the law as it
stands. See your Study guide p124 ff. (1)

Question 7
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of statutory
law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered, it was confiscated by
the police during a raid of A's house. Which statement best explains the nature of the claim
against A?
1. In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax the par
delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties' conduct.
2. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
3. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam because
it is unfair that he should lose his money and get nothing.
4. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because there is no
other enrichment action at his disposal.
5. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Feedback: The agreement between the parties is void due to illegality. The appropriate enrichment
claim to be applied in these circumstances therefore is the condictio ob turpem vel
iniustam causam. Answers 2, 4 and 5 therefore are incorrect. Although Answer 3 correctly identifies
the enrichment action, the reason provided for the liability is clearly wrong. Unjustified enrichment
liability is not determined on the basis of unfairness. Answer 1 correctly describes the rule that is
applicable here. A party’s claim under this action is generally excluded where it acted with moral
turpitude, but the court has an equitable discretion to relax this rule. (1)

Question 8
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis
be used?
1. As a general enrichment action.
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away.
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition.
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
Feedback: The courts have been at pains to emphasise that this action is not a general enrichment
action, even though there remains a great deal of uncertainty about its requirements or scope.
Answer 3 deals with the condictio causa data causa non secuta; Answer 4 deals with the condictio ob
turpem vel iniustam causam; and Answer 5 deals with the condictio indebiti.
Answer 2 is one of the classical examples where the condictio sine causa specialis has been
applied. See your Study guide pp 72 ff. (1)

Question 9
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person as if he is
the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person as if he
is the owner thereof.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person
temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
Feedback: A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and 3
are accordingly incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable property and
only occupies temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of the property. See your
Study guide pp 99 ff. (1)

Question 10
Which statement best explains the legal position on the recognition of a
general enrichment action in South African law?
1. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a general
enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.
2. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a general
enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.
3. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate Division
recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.
4. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate Division
rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa but recognised that courts can
extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is deemed necessary.
5. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate Division
rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa and also rejected the idea that
courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is deemed necessary.
Feedback: See your Study guide p 144 ff. (1)
_________________________________________________________________________

The following facts relate to questions 1 and 2.

A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair
the vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and
completes his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
This set of facts relates to indirect enrichment. Please note that there is a contractual
relationship between A and B, as well as between A and C and eventually also between A and
X. Last-mentioned contract is not relevant for this set of facts. Also take note that there is no
contractual relationship between B and C. Look again at the decisions in Gouws v Jester
Pools and the Buzzard Electrical-case.

Question 1
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority
on which it is based?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd V
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)
Answer: In the Gouws case it was decided that C had a contractual claim and indeed against
A. C did not have an enrichment action against the owner, B. B’s enrichment wasn’t at the

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

expense of C, but rather at the expense of A (who was contractually obligated to pay). In the
Buzzard case the Appellate Division left open this issue. Brooklyn House Furnishers dealt
with rights of retention and not with enrichment actions, and therefore it did not refer to the
Gouws case.

Question 2
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he
can exercise it?
1. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has
been paid for its necessary expenses.
2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the
full contract price.
3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996
4 SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B.
4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be exercised only
against the creditor.
5. C has no retention right under these circumstances.
Answer: A right of retention is applicable against the whole world, including the owner. In the
Brooklyn House Furnishers case the court acknowledged a right of retention in similar
circumstances. The right of retention is not linked to a contract with the owner. In the
Buzzard case the court did not make a decision on rights of retention.

Question 3
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a suspensive
condition, and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being
fulfilled.
2. Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a resolutive
condition, and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being
fulfilled.
3. Where an undue payment has been made in circumstances where the mistake is
not excusable.
4. Where an executor who is now functus officio has made a payment to heirs which were
not due because a creditor had lodged its claim too late.
5. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a forged cheque.
Answer: In the case of option 1 the condictio causa dat causa non secuta should be
instituted. In option 2 an incorrect statement is made – if the condition is fulfilled the contract
comes into being. In the case of the condictio indebiti the mistake must be excusable and
therefore option 3 is incorrect. Option 4 is correct – see par 4.3 p 46 of Study Guide 1 and in
the case of option 5 the relevant remedy is the condictio sine causa specialis – see par 7.4
p 72 of Study Guide 1.

Question 4
Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim in terms of the condictio
indebiti?
1. The enrichment was unlawful.
2. The defendant was unjustifiably enriched.
3. There was a causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment
4. The mistake must have been excusable
5. 2 and 3 and 4 are correct
Answer: Take note that the general requirements for enrichment liability must be proven in the
case of all enrichment actions. Unlawfulness is a requirement with the condictio ob turpem

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

vel iniustam causam.

Question 5
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of
statutory law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered,
it was confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Which statement best
explains the nature of the claim against A?
1. In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax
the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties' conduct.
2. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
3. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam because
it is unfair that he should lose his money and get nothing.
4. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because there is
no other enrichment action at his disposal.
5. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Answer: The transaction between A and B is unlawful and therefore void. Breach of contract
and delict are not relevant here. The applicable action is the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam. Fairness is not the main consideration with this remedy. B will not have a claim
according to the strict application of the par delictum rule, but in Jajhbay v Cassim the
Appellate Division held that the rule should be relaxed if required to do “simple justice
between man and man”.

Question 6
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis
be used?
1. As a general enrichment action.
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away.
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition.
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
Answer: See Study Guide 1 par 7.4 p 72.

The following facts are relevant for questions 7-9.

K is the owner of a farm adjacent to that of L. Unbeknown to K and L, K has been
occupying part of L's land due to a fence that was mistakenly put up 10 years ago. K
has effected the following improvements on that part of the farm: (a) built a dam at a
cost of R30,000; (b) a luxury little lapa on the edge of the dam at a cost of R100,000; (c)
a borehole at a cost of R20,000; (d) planted fruit trees at a cost of R15,000 (e) planted
mealies which are almost ready to harvest at a cost of R60,000 (value R120,000).
During his tenure of the land he has harvested mealies worth R300,000 (production
cost R250,000) and fruit from the fruit trees sold at R55,000. L has now become aware
of the true situation and demands that K leaves the land.

Question 7
Which statement best explains the nature of K's possession or occupation of the land?
1. K is a bona fide occupier of the land.
2. K is a mala fide occupier of the land.
3. K is a bona fide possessor of the land.
4. K is a lawful occupier of the land.
5. K is a lawful possessor of the land. Answer:
See Study Guide 1 par 9.4.2 p 103.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Question 8
Which statement best explains the nature and extent of K's claim(s), if any?
1. K has an enrichment action for all of the expenses that he has incurred on
the improvement of L's land.
2. K has an enrichment action for the full amount of all the necessary and useful
expenses he has incurred.
3. K has a choice to claim either the amount of his expenses incurred or the value by
which L's land has been increased, whichever is more.
4. K has an enrichment action for the useful and necessary expenses he has incurred to
the extent that those expenses have increased the value of L's land.
5. K has no claim for the mealies which have not been harvested yet as they now belong to
L.
Answer: K cannot institute the true manager of affairs action (actio negotiorum gestorum
contraria) because he never had the intention to act on behalf of someone else. He was under
the mistaken belief that he was acting in his own interest as owner of the land. He would
therefore at best have at his disposal the extended manager of affairs action (actio
negotiorum gestorum utilis), which is an enrichment action. This means that he can only claim
for enrichment or impoverishment, whichever is the lesser. See Study Guide 1 par 8.4.1-8.4.2
p 83-90.

Question 9
Which statement best explains the amounts that may be brought into account
against K's claim, if any?
1. L is not entitled to subtract anything from K's enrichment claim.
2. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of K's
occupation of the land.
3. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of
the mealies and fruit harvested by K and the value of K's occupation of the land.
4. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of
the mealies harvested by K and the value of K's occupation of the land.
5. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of
the mealies harvested by K minus the production costs.
Answer: See Study Guide 1 par 9.4.2 p 106 (fruits).

Question 10
Which statement best explains the legal position on the recognition of a
general enrichment action in South African law?
1. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.
2. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.
3. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.
4. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
but recognised that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is
deemed necessary.
5. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
and also rejected the idea that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances
where it is deemed necessary.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Answer: In Nortje v Pool the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment
action in the SA law. In the Willers case the Appellate Division also rejected the existence of a general
enrichment action, but held that in appropriate circumstances enrichment liability should be extended.
See Study Guide 1 par 14.3 and 14.4 p 144-146.
_________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement
for enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished.
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause.
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully.
4. The defendant must have been enriched.
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of
the defendant.
Feedback: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with unjustified
enrichment law, although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob turpem vel
iniustam causam. Make sure that you understand the difference between unlawfulness and
the requirement that the enrichment must have taken place unjustifiably, ie without a valid
underlying cause. See your Study guide pp 13, 21 ff.
(1)

Question 2
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct.
Feedback: See the discussion of the requirements for the condictio indebiti on pp 32-33
as well as the answer to the previous question.

Question 3
A has paid B an amount of R 40,000 by cheque. Before B could present the cheque to his
bank, A countermanded the cheque because B had delivered defective goods to him. X,
a clerk at A’s bank failed to notice the countermand notice and payment of the amount
was made to B.
Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the possible claims by A or
the bank:
1. B has been enriched at the expense of the bank, because the bank had no mandate
to make a payment from A’s account.
2. B has been enriched at the expense of A, from whose account the payment was made.
3. A has an enrichment claim against B for the full amount of R 40,000.
4. A has an enrichment claim against B for a reduced amount.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
Feedback: If the bank makes a payment on a countermanded cheque, the bank has no
mandate from its client to make the payment from the client’s account. The bank has an
obligation to reverse the payment under these circumstances. The bank, however, does
have an enrichment claim against the payee in so far as the payee has been enriched. See
your Study guide pp 50-51; 73 ff.
(1)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Question 4
E is an employee of M. E is paid a monthly salary of R 20,000. On 15 June 2009 M summarily
dismissed E because of theft of company assets. The dismissal was lawful in terms of the
employment contract and employment law.
Indicate which statement best explains the possible claim that E might have against
his employer:
1. E has no claim for any part of his salary.
2. E has a contractual claim for the full amount of his salary for June 2009.
3. E has a pro rata claim for half of his salary of June 2009 based on the principle
of unjustified enrichment.
4. E has a contractual claim for a pro rata part of his salary for June 2009.
5. E has a claim for the full amount of his salary for June 2009 based on the principle
of unjustified enrichment.
Feedback: Although the approach to award an enrichment claim under these circumstances
has been criticized, the leading case of Spencer v Gostelow is authority that the employee has
an enrichment claim in these circumstances. See your Study guide pp 138-139.

A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair
the vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and
completes his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.

Question 5
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority
on which it is based?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd
v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A).
Feedback: There are two approaches on the issue whether the garage has an enrichment
claim under these circumstances: In the Gouws case the court held that the owner of the
property was not enriched at the expense of the person making the improvements or
attachments, because that person has a contractual claim against the lessee. The decision
in the Gouws case was left open in the Buzzard Electrical decision. The Brooklyn House
Furnishers decision does not deal with this issue. See also the approach adopted in the
Hubby’s Investments case. See your Study guide pp 17 ff.
(1)

Question 6
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he
can exercise it?
1. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has
been paid for its necessary expenses.
2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the
full contract price.
3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

4 SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B.

4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be exercised only
against the creditor.
5. C has no retention right under these circumstances.
Feedback: The garage cannot exercise a debtor-creditor lien against the owner as there is
no contractual relationship between them. The garage may have an enrichment lien for
necessary expenses against the owner in terms of the decision in the Brooklyn House
Furnisher’s case. Although one may argue that C has no retention right at all, Answer 1 is in
line with the law as it stands. See your Study guide p124 ff.

Question 7
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of
statutory law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered, it was
confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Which statement best explains the
nature of the claim against A?
1. In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax
the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties' conduct.
2. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
3. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam because it is unfair that he should lose his money and get nothing.
4. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because there is
no other enrichment action at his disposal.
5. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Feedback: The agreement between the parties is void due to illegality. The appropriate
enrichment claim to be applied in these circumstances therefore is the condictio ob turpem
vel iniustam causam. Answers 2, 4 and 5 therefore are incorrect. Although Answer 3 correctly
identifies the enrichment action, the reason provided for the liability is clearly wrong.
Unjustified enrichment liability is not determined on the basis of unfairness. Answer 1
correctly describes the rule that is applicable here. A party’s claim under this action is
generally excluded where it acted with moral turpitude, but the court has an equitable
discretion to relax this rule.
(1)

Question 8
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis
be used?
1. As a general enrichment action.
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away.
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition.
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
Feedback: The courts have been at pains to emphasise that this action is not a general
enrichment action, even though there remains a great deal of uncertainty about its
requirements or scope. Answer 3 deals with the condictio causa data causa non secuta;
Answer 4 deals with the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam; and Answer 5 deals with
the condictio indebiti. Answer 2 is one of the classical examples where the condictio sine
causa specialis has been applied. See your Study guide pp 72 ff.

Question 9
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's
property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

another person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property
of another person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
Feedback: A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and
3 are accordingly incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable
property and only occupies temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of
the property. See your Study guide pp 99 ff.
(1)

Question 10
Which statement best explains the legal position on the recognition of a
general enrichment action in South African law?
1. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.
2. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.
3. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.
4. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
but recognised that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is
deemed necessary.
5. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
and also rejected the idea that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances
where it is deemed necessary.
Feedback: See your Study guide p 144 ff.
_________________________________________________________________________

The following facts relate to questions 1 and 2.

A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair
the vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and
completes his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.
This set of facts relates to indirect enrichment. Please note that there is a contractual
relationship between A and B, as well as between A and C and eventually also between A and
X. Last-mentioned contract is not relevant for this set of facts. Also take note that there is no
contractual relationship between B and C. Look again at the decisions in Gouws v Jester
Pools and the Buzzard Electrical-case.

Question 1
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority
on which it is based?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd V
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)
Answer: In the Gouws case it was decided that C had a contractual claim and indeed against
A. C did not have an enrichment action against the owner, B. B’s enrichment wasn’t at the
expense of C, but rather at the expense of A (who was contractually obligated to pay). In the
Buzzard case the Appellate Division left open this issue. Brooklyn House Furnishers dealt
with rights of retention and not with enrichment actions, and therefore it did not refer to the
Gouws case.

Question 2
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he
can exercise it?
1. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has
been paid for its necessary expenses.
2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the
full contract price.
3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B.
4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be exercised only
against the creditor.
5. C has no retention right under these circumstances.
Answer: A right of retention is applicable against the whole world, including the owner. In the
Brooklyn House Furnishers case the court acknowledged a right of retention in similar
circumstances. The right of retention is not linked to a contract with the owner. In the
Buzzard case the court did not make a decision on rights of retention.

Question 3
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a suspensive
condition, and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being fulfilled.
2. Where a person has made a payment in terms of a contract subject to a resolutive
condition, and the contract has now been extinguished due to the condition being fulfilled.
3. Where an undue payment has been made in circumstances where the mistake is not
excusable.
4. Where an executor who is now functus officio has made a payment to heirs which were
not due because a creditor had lodged its claim too late.
5. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a forged cheque.
Answer: In the case of option 1 the condictio causa dat causa non secuta should be instituted.
In option 2 an incorrect statement is made – if the condition is fulfilled the contract comes into
being. In the case of the condictio indebiti the mistake must be excusable and therefore option
3 is incorrect. Option 4 is correct – see par 4.3 p 46 of Study Guide 1 and in the case of option
5 the relevant remedy is the condictio sine causa specialis – see par 7.4 p 72 of Study Guide 1.

Question 4
Which of the following is/are (a) prerequisite(s) for a claim in terms of the condictio
indebiti?
1. The enrichment was unlawful.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

2. The defendant was unjustifiably enriched.

3. There was a causal link between the enrichment and impoverishment
4. The mistake must have been excusable
5. 2 and 3 and 4 are correct
Answer: Take note that the general requirements for enrichment liability must be proven in
the case of all enrichment actions. Unlawfulness is a requirement with the condictio ob turpem
vel iniustam causam.

Question 5
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of statutory
law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered, it was
confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Which statement best explains the
nature of the claim against A?
1. In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax
the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties' conduct.
2. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
3. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam because
it is unfair that he should lose his money and get nothing.
4. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because there is no
other enrichment action at his disposal.
5. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Answer: The transaction between A and B is unlawful and therefore void. Breach of contract
and delict are not relevant here. The applicable action is the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam. Fairness is not the main consideration with this remedy. B will not have a claim
according to the strict application of the par delictum rule, but in Jajhbay v Cassim the
Appellate Division held that the rule should be relaxed if required to do “simple justice between
man and man”.

Question 6
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis
be used?
1. As a general enrichment action.
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away.
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition.
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
Answer: See Study Guide 1 par 7.4 p 72.
The following facts are relevant for questions 7-9.
K is the owner of a farm adjacent to that of L. Unbeknown to K and L, K has been
occupying part of L's land due to a fence that was mistakenly put up 10 years ago. K has
effected the following improvements on that part of the farm: (a) built a dam at a cost of
R30,000; (b) a luxury little lapa on the edge of the dam at a cost of R100,000; (c) a
borehole at a cost of R20,000; (d) planted fruit trees at a cost of R15,000 (e) planted
mealies which are almost ready to harvest at a cost of R60,000 (value R120,000). During
his tenure of the land he has harvested mealies worth R300,000 (production cost
R250,000) and fruit from the fruit trees sold at R55,000. L has now become aware of the
true situation and demands that K leaves the land.

Question 7
Which statement best explains the nature of K's possession or occupation of the land?
1. K is a bona fide occupier of the land.
2. K is a mala fide occupier of the land.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

3. K is a bona fide possessor of the land.

4. K is a lawful occupier of the land.
5. K is a lawful possessor of the land. Answer:
See Study Guide 1 par 9.4.2 p 103.

Question 8
Which statement best explains the nature and extent of K's claim(s), if any?
1. K has an enrichment action for all of the expenses that he has incurred on
the improvement of L's land.
2. K has an enrichment action for the full amount of all the necessary and useful expenses
he has incurred.
3. K has a choice to claim either the amount of his expenses incurred or the value by
which L's land has been increased, whichever is more.
4. K has an enrichment action for the useful and necessary expenses he has incurred to
the extent that those expenses have increased the value of L's land.
5. K has no claim for the mealies which have not been harvested yet as they now belong to
L.
Answer: K cannot institute the true manager of affairs action (actio negotiorum gestorum contraria)
because he never had the intention to act on behalf of someone else. He was under the mistaken
belief that he was acting in his own interest as owner of the land. He would therefore at best have at
his disposal the extended manager of affairs action (actio negotiorum gestorum utilis), which is an
enrichment action. This means that he can only claim for enrichment or impoverishment, whichever
is the lesser. See Study Guide 1 par 8.4.1-8.4.2 p 83-
90.

Question 9
Which statement best explains the amounts that may be brought into account
against K's claim, if any?
1. L is not entitled to subtract anything from K's enrichment claim.
2. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of K's
occupation of the land.
3. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of
the mealies and fruit harvested by K and the value of K's occupation of the land.
4. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of
the mealies harvested by K and the value of K's occupation of the land.
5. L is entitled to reduce the enrichment claim against him by subtracting the value of
the mealies harvested by K minus the production costs.
Answer: See Study Guide 1 par 9.4.2 p 106 (fruits).

Question 10
Which statement best explains the legal position on the recognition of a
general enrichment action in South African law?
1. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.
2. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.
3. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.
4. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
but recognised that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is
deemed necessary.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

5. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the

Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
and also rejected the idea that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances
where it is deemed necessary.
Answer: In Nortje v Pool the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment
action in the SA law. In the Willers case the Appellate Division also rejected the existence of a
general enrichment action, but held that in appropriate circumstances enrichment liability
should be extended. See Study Guide 1 par 14.3 and 14.4 p 144-146.
_________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Which one of the following statements cannot be regarded as a general requirement
for enrichment liability?
1. The plaintiff must have been impoverished.
2. The enrichment must have taken place without a justifiable cause.
3. The enrichment must have taken place unlawfully.
4. The defendant must have been enriched.
5. The plaintiff is only entitled to the lesser of his impoverishment and the enrichment of
the defendant.
Feedback: There is no general requirement of unlawfulness when dealing with unjustified
enrichment law, although it may be relevant in the case of the condictio ob turpem vel
iniustam causam. Make sure that you understand the difference between unlawfulness and
the requirement that the enrichment must have taken place unjustifiably, ie without a valid
underlying cause. See your Study guide pp 13, 21 ff. (1)

Question 2
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct.
Feedback: See the discussion of the requirements for the condictio indebiti on pp 32-33 as
well as the answer to the previous question. (1)

Question 3
A has paid B an amount of R 40,000 by cheque. Before B could present the cheque to his
bank, A countermanded the cheque because B had delivered defective goods to him. X, a clerk
at A’s bank failed to notice the countermand notice and payment of the amount was made to B.
Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the possible claims by A or
the bank:
1. B has been enriched at the expense of the bank, because the bank had no mandate
to make a payment from A’s account.
2. B has been enriched at the expense of A, from whose account the payment was made.
3. A has an enrichment claim against B for the full amount of R 40,000.
4. A has an enrichment claim against B for a reduced amount.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
Feedback: If the bank makes a payment on a countermanded cheque, the bank has no mandate
from its client to make the payment from the client’s account. The bank has an obligation to reverse
the payment under these circumstances. The bank does have a possible enrichment claim against
the payee in so far as the payee has been enriched. Where, however,

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

the payment is made to extinguish a debt, there is no enrichment and consequently no

action. See your Study guide pp 50-51; 73 ff. (1)

Question 4
E is an employee of M. E is paid a monthly salary of R 20,000. On 15 June M summarily
dismissed E because of theft of company assets. The dismissal was lawful in terms of
the employment contract and employment law.
Indicate which statement best explains the possible claim that E might have against
his employer:
1. E has no claim for any part of his salary.
2. E has a contractual claim for the full amount of his salary for June.
3. E has a pro rata claim for half of his salary of June based on the principle of unjustified
enrichment.
4. E has a contractual claim for a pro rata part of his salary for June.
5. E has a claim for the full amount of his salary for June based on the principle of
unjustified enrichment.
Feedback: Although the approach to award an enrichment claim under these circumstances
has been criticized, the leading case of Spencer v Gostelow is authority that the employee has
an enrichment claim in these circumstances. See your Study guide pp 138-139. (1)

A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Northern
Cape, the vehicle breaks down. A contracts with C, a garage in Springbok, to repair
the vehicle at a cost of R12,000. After two days A leases another vehicle from X and
completes his trip. He departs for America. C wants to claim the R12,000 from B.

Question 5
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B and the authority
on which it is based?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B had not been enriched.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that C has no claim against B because B has not been enriched at C's expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A).
5. The decision in the Gouws case was overruled in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd
v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A).
Feedback: There are two approaches on the issue whether the garage has an enrichment
claim under these circumstances: In the Gouws case the court held that the owner of the
property was not enriched at the expense of the person making the improvements or
attachments, because that person has a contractual claim against the lessee. The decision
in the Gouws case was left open in the Buzzard Electrical decision. The Brooklyn House
Furnishers decision does not deal with this issue. See also the approach adopted in the
Hubby’s Investments case. See your Study guide pp 17 ff. (1)

Question 6
Which statement best explains whether C has a retention right or whether he
can exercise it?
1. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until such time as it has
been paid for its necessary expenses.
2. C can exercise a retention right over the vehicle against B until it has been paid the full

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

contract price.
3. In terms of the decision in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4
SA 19 (A) C has no retention right because it has no enrichment claim against B.
4. An enrichment retention right is a personal right and can therefore be exercised only
against the creditor.
5. C has no retention right under these circumstances.
Feedback: The garage cannot exercise a debtor-creditor lien against the owner as there is no
contractual relationship between them. The garage may have an enrichment lien for necessary
expenses against the owner in terms of the decision in the Brooklyn House Furnisher’s case.
Although one may argue that C has no retention right at all, Answer 1 is in line with the law as
it stands. See your Study guide p124 ff. (1)

Question 7
A has sold uncut diamonds to B for an amount of R100,000 in contravention of statutory
law. B has paid the amount but before the diamonds could be delivered, it was
confiscated by the police during a raid of A's house. Which statement best explains the
nature of the claim against A?
1. In circumstances like these a court may exercise an equitable judicial discretion to relax
the par delictum rule, depending on the relative turpitude of the parties' conduct.
2. B has a claim for damages against A due to a breach of contract.
3. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam because
it is unfair that he should lose his money and get nothing.
4. B has a claim against A in terms of the condictio sine causa specialis because there is no
other enrichment action at his disposal.
5. B has a claim for damages against A based on delict.
Feedback: The agreement between the parties is void due to illegality. The appropriate enrichment
claim to be applied in these circumstances therefore is the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam
causam. Answers 2, 4 and 5 therefore are incorrect. Although Answer 3 correctly identifies the
enrichment action, the reason provided for the liability is clearly wrong. Unjustified enrichment
liability is not determined on the basis of unfairness. Answer 1 correctly describes the rule that is
applicable here. A party’s claim under this action is generally excluded where it acted with moral
turpitude, but the court has an equitable discretion to relax this rule. (1)

Question 8
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio sine causa specialis
be used?
1. As a general enrichment action.
2. Where property is transferred on the grounds of a valid cause which later falls away.
3. Where a contract is terminated due to a resolutive condition.
4. Where property has been transferred in terms of an illegal agreement.
5. Where undue payment was made due to an excusable error.
Feedback: The courts have been at pains to emphasise that this action is not a general
enrichment action, even though there remains a great deal of uncertainty about its
requirements or scope. Answer 3 deals with the condictio causa data causa non secuta;
Answer 4 deals with the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam; and Answer 5 deals with the
condictio indebiti. Answer 2 is one of the classical examples where the condictio sine causa
specialis has been applied. See your Study guide pp 72 ff. (1)

Question 9
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another person.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

2. A bona fide occupier is someone who unlawfully occupies the immovable property
of another person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
Feedback: A bona or mala fide occupier is always unlawfully in occupation. Answers 1 and 3
are accordingly incorrect. Occupiers know that they are not the owners of the immovable
property and only occupies temporarily. A possessor occupies as it he or she is the owner of the
property. See your Study guide pp 99 ff. (1)

Question 10
Which statement best explains the legal position on the recognition of a
general enrichment action in South African law?
1. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.
2. In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a general enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.
3. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.
4. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa but recognised that
courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances where it is deemed necessary.
5. In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa
and also rejected the idea that courts can extend enrichment liability to circumstances
where it is deemed necessary.
Feedback: See your Study guide p 144 ff. (1)
_________________________________________________________________________

Questions 1 to 3.

The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.

A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has
checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owing
in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had already paid the amount a
week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer in to the account of A. At the time of the
second payment A's account was overdrawn in the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in
credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his
employees their monthly wages. He has also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising
that his account was in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The claim cannot be
delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim can also not be based on
the contract, because there had already been payment which extinguished the duty to pay in terms of
the contract. Evaluate further the answers against the requirements of the condictio indebiti. Here the
one party made a bona fide payment that was not owing and under circumstances that were
excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by A's misrepresentation. See further Study
Guide 1 par 3.4, page 35ff.

Question 1

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Which statement best explains the nature of B’s claim against A?

1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.

Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law is
regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment. At the time of
the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment therefore cannot be in
terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not unlawful because A's conduct
was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of its agreement with B and is therefore
entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly, the bank was not impoverished. Consider whether all the
other requirements for enrichment liability and the condictio indebiti have been complied with. See
further Study Guide 1 par 3.4, page 35ff.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.

Question 3
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money. The fact that his
overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have decreased by R
20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his enrichment to diminish as those are
expenses he would have had in any event. The cost of the luxury holiday, however, does constitute
an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not have made these expenses if his account
had not been in credit. There is no indication on the facts provided that A should have realised that he
was enriched. See further Study Guide 1 par 2.3, page 28ff and par 3.4, page 37ff.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank received the
benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on the wages
and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on the luxury
holiday.

Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness is not a
requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party must have made a
payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake. See further Study Guide 1 par 3.4,
page 35ff.
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must prove
the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct

Question 5
Answer: In the case of countermanded cheques the appropriate action is the condictio sine causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is contractual and not in
enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is the condictio ob
turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the condictio sine causa.
Payments under duress are specifically dealt with under the conditio indebiti. See further Study Guide
1 par 4.6, page 50ff.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment later falls away.

Question 6-7

The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.

X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the property it
is renting from Z in Pretoria. It can be shown that the value of the property has increased by
R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying Y for the work done. Y now
wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in Gouws v
Jester Pools and Buzzard Electrical. In the Gouws case it was decided that Y only had a contractual
claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against the owner, Z. Note also that Gouws
would constitute a binding precedent in Pretoria. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left
undecided by the Appellate Division. See further Study Guide 1 par 2.2.3, page 21ff.

Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.

Question 7
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer in question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that Y has
no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that Y has a
claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze &
Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)

Question 8

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a
hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to attend to
the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The total cost was R12,000.
Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which statement best explains the basis of G's
possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in that case he would
have no claim as the neighbour is not enriched any longer. G can rely on the real action for tending to
another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. In terms of this action he can
reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve his neighbour's property. See further
Study Guide 1 par 8.1, page 76ff.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because the bull died.

Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a
hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to attend to
the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The total cost was R12,000.
Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a meddlesome neighbour and H has previously
warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G
should notice any problem. G did not bother to call K. Which statement best explains the basis
of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has acted against
the express instructions of his neighbour. He can only rely on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis,
which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died, the neighbour is no longer enriched. See
further Study Guide 1 par 8.2.2, page 79ff.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because the bull died.

Question 10
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
Answer: A bona fide occupier's possession is always unlawful. A possessor always occupies as if it
is the owner, not as a lessee. See further Study Guide 1 par 9.2.2, page 88ff.
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person as if he is
the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person as if he
is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person
temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
_________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Answer: See Study guide 1, par 14.3.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Indicate which one of the following statements most correctly describes the existence of a
general enrichment action in South African law:
1. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a general
enrichment action in South African law.
2. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general
enrichment action in South African law.
3. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South African law.
4. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A) the Appellate
Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South African law.
5. Although the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South
African law in Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A), the existence of such an action has since been
recognised in the case law.

Question 2
Answer : The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam is used in cases of unlawful contracts (see
Study guide 1, par 5.4). The condictio causa data causa non secuta is used in cases where the
contract of sale was entered into subject to a condition (see Study guide 1, par 6.4). The condictio
sine causa specialis is used in instances where performance was due, but the causa for performance
fell away at a later stage (see Study guide 1, par 7.4). The condictio indebiti is used in instances
where performance is rendered in the mistaken belief that it was due or owing at the time it is done
(see Study guide 1, par 3.4). The actio negotiorum gestorum utilis is used in instances where a
person is managing someone else’s affairs (see Study guide 1, par 8.4). In this instance the contract
of sale is not unlawful, but void due to initial impossibility. It is thus not a case of performance that was
due at the time of performance and the causa fell away later, but rather a case of mistaken belief that
performance was owing at the time it was made. The correct option is therefore 4.
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R50,000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of the conclusion of
the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when he was kicked by
another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new young foal for R15,000, to pay
his workers weekly wages of R8,000, to pay his overdraft of R10,000 and to pay for a luxury weekend
away of R12,000. There remains R5,000 of the money in his savings account with the bank. This
contract of sale is, however, void due to initial impossibility.
Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the condictio ob
turpem vel iniustam causam.
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the condictio
causa data causa non secuta.
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the condictio
sine causa specialis.
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the
condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on the actio
negiotiorum gestorum utilis.
(1)

Question 3
Answer : P will claim the full R50 000, but S could raise the defence that part of the enrichment has
fallen away. If S used the money to pay debts and wages, the defence will not succeed, because he
saved expenses he would have had in any event. If S used the money to buy something he will be
regarded as enriched to the extent of the value of the goods. If S spend the money on something that
has no market value anymore, and it is not something he would have done if he was aware of the true

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

facts, his defence will succeed. In this case S has been enriched by the R5 000 left in his savings
account, the R15 000 paid for the foal if we assume that the value of the foal is still R15 000, the
weekly wages of R8 000 and the R10 000 of the overdraft. The luxury weekend has no market value
afterwards and S will succeed with the defence that the enrichment has fallen away in this respect,
unless he booked and planned the holiday irrespective of whether he sold Big Boy or not. The correct
option is thus 5.
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best explains the quantum
of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R50,000 paid.
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in the savings account,
the R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R8,000.
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in S’s savings account.
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in the savings account and
the R15,000 paid for the foal.
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in the savings account, the R15,000 paid
for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R8,000 and the R10,000 paid on the overdraft.
(1)

Question 4
Answer : Options 2, 3 and 4 are correct – see Study Guide 1, par 5.4 and Jajhbay v Cassim. Option
1 is incorrect because of the word “never”. In instances where the par delictum rule is relaxed, a party
who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract may still succeed if the court decides
that the turpitude on the part of the plaintiff was less than that on the part of the defendant.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of the condictio ob
turpem vel iniustam causam:
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can never have an
enrichment claim against the other party.
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an unlawful agreement.
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging this enrichment action.
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man” when dealing with
claims based on this enrichment action.
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong.
(1)

Question 5
Answer : L is a lessee and thus a lawful occupier. A bona fide and mala fide occupier are both
unlawfully on the premises and that is not the case here. A possessor is someone that acts as if he is
the owner, which is also not the case here. The correct option is thus 1.
L is renting a farm from O for an amount of R10,000 per month. Without notifying O, L concludes a
contract with R to build a new storeroom at a cost of R100,000 and to make repairs to the roof of the
house on the farm at a cost of R15,000 because the roof is leaking and causing damage to the
interior of the house.
Indicate which statement best explains L’s presence on O’s land:
1. L is a lawful occupier of the farm.
2. L is a bona fide occupier of the farm.
3. L is a bona fide possessor of the farm.
4. L is a mala fide occupier of the farm because he did not have the permission of O to effect the
improvements and repairs.
5. 1 and 3 are both correct.
(1)

Question 6

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Answer : Because L is a lawful occupier, not a bona fide occupier, option 2 is incorrect immediately.
As a lessee of rural land the Placaaten will apply (see Study guide 1, par 10.2.1) and L will not have a
claim for his necessary and useful improvements because it was made without the permission of the
owner. The correct option is thus 4.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Indicate which statement best explains L’s possible
claim:
1. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for the value of all of the improvements
affected to the farm.
2. L as bona fide occupier has an enrichment action against O to the extent that the improvements
increased the value of the farm.
3. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for only the value of the necessary
improvements effected to the farm, i.e. the repairs to the roof.
4. L as lessee of rural land has no claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch Placaaten that
still applies in South African law.
5. L as lessee of rural land has a claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch Placaaten that still
applies in South African law.
(1)

Question 7
Answer : See Study guide 1, par 2.2.3. Options 2 and 4 are both correct.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Assume further that L has absconded after the
improvements were effected and cannot be found as he has apparently emigrated.
Indicate which statement best explains the case law on whether R will have a claim against O
under these circumstances:
1. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) it was held that under
these circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made to the farm.
2. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) the question on
whether R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made to the farm under these
circumstances, was left undecided.
3. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these circumstances
R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made to the farm.
4. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these circumstances
R has no claim against O for the value of the improvements made to the farm.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
(1)

Question 8
Answer : B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B also does not
have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and therefore B has no
enrichment claim against X.
B has bought an operating business from S for R1.5 million. After B had taken over the running of the
business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any product until S has settled
a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R50,000. B pays S’s debt with X because he
cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S refuses to repay the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B against
X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended management of
affairs action).

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true management of
affairs action).
(1)

Question 9
Answer : As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B
is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt and therefore the condictio
indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to advance his own interests and therefore the true
management of affairs action will not be available to him. In Odendaal v Van Oudtshoorn 1968 3 SA
433 (T) the court held that the extended management of affairs action will be available in these
circumstances. See Study guide 1, par 8.4.2. The correct option is thus 3.
Assume the same facts as in question 8. Indicate which statement best explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria (true management of
affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without the
permission of S.
(1)

Question 10
Answer : B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his enrichment was for a lesser
amount, because he had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase price.
Assume the same facts as in Question 8. Further assume that the reason why S refused to pay X was
because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase
price of those goods in an amount of R13,000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R50,000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R37,000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R50,000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without the
permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
(1)
_________________________________________________________________________

Questions 1 to 3.

The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.

A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing. B has
checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount is owing in terms
of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had already paid the amount a week earlier by
way of an electronic funds transfer in to the account of A. At the time of the second payment A's
account was overdrawn in the amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the
payment. A has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has
also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The claim cannot be
delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim can also not be based on the
contract, because there had already been payment which extinguished the duty to pay in terms of the

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

contract. Next evaluate the answers against the requirements of the condictio indebiti. Here the one
party made a bona fide payment that was not owing and under circumstances that were excusable,
partly because the mistake was induced by A's misrepresentation.

Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of B’s claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.

Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in law is
regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment. At the time of
the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment therefore cannot be in
terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not unlawful because A's conduct
was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of its agreement with B and is therefore
entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly the bank was not impoverished. Consider whether all of the
other requirements for enrichment liability and the condictio indebiti have been complied with.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it was not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.

Question 3
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money. The fact that his
overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have decreased by R 20,000.
The payment of the wages also does not cause his enrichment to diminish as those are expense he would
have had in any event. The cost of the luxury holiday, however, does constitute an extinction of his
enrichment, as he would probably not have made these expenses if his account had not been in credit.
There is no indication on the facts provided that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the bank received the
benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent on the wages
and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on the luxury
holiday.

Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness is not a
requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party must have made a
payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must prove
the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

2. That the enrichment was unlawful.

3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct

Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio sine causa specialis.
Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is contractual and not in enrichment.
Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is the condictio ob turpem vel
iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the condictio sine causa.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment later falls away.

Question 6-7

The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.

X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the property it
is renting from Z. It can be shown that the value of the property has increased by R20,000 due
to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying Y for the work done. Y now wants to
lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in Gouws v
Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that Y only had a
contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against the owner, Z. In the Buzzard
Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.

Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.

Question 7
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer in question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that Y has
no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held that Y has a
claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze &
Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)

Question 8

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a
hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to attend to
the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The total cost was R12,000.
Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which statement best explains the basis of G's
possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in that case he would
have no claim as the neighbour is not enriched any longer. G can rely on the real action for tending to
another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. In terms of this action he can
reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve his neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because the bull died.

Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is currently on a
hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a veterinary doctor to attend to
the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the medication. The total cost was R12,000.
Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a meddlesome neighbour and H has previously
warned him not to do anything on his farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G
should notice any problem. G did not bother to call K. Which statement best explains the basis
of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has acted against
the express instructions of his neighbour. He can only rely on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis,
which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died, the neighbour is no longer enriched.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because the bull died.

Question 10
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's property?
Answer: A bona fide occupier's possession is always unlawful. A possessor always occupies as if it
is the owner, not as a lessee.
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of another person
as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another person as if he is
the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person as if he
is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person
temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
_________________________________________________________________________

Question 1 to 3.

The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.

A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B is owing.
B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had
already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer in to the
account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn in the
amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has
taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages. He has
also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements. The claim
cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim can also
not be based on the contract, because there had already been payment which extinguished
the duty to pay in terms of the contract. Next evaluate the answers against the requirements
of the condictio indebiti. Here the one party made a bona fide payment that was not owing and
under circumstances that were excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by A's
misrepresentation.

Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.

Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person who in
law is regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made the payment.
At the time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment
therefore cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is not
unlawful because A's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms
of its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly the bank
was not impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability
and the condictio indebiti have been complied with.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it
was not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.

Question 3
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money. The fact
that his overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have
decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his enrichment to
diminish as those are expense he would have had in any event. The cost of the luxury holiday,
however, does constitute an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not have
made these expenses if his account had not been in credit. There is no indication on the facts
provided that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the
bank received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent
on the wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost on
the luxury holiday.

Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness is not
a requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party must have
made a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct

Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio sine causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is contractual
and not in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is
the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the
condictio causa data causa non secuta.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment
later falls away.

Question 6-7

The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.

X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on the
property it is renting from Z. It can be shown that the value of the property has
increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying Y for
the work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions in
Gouws v Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided
that Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against
the owner, Z. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate
division.

Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. X has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Question 7
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer
in question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it was held
that Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v
Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)

Question 8
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is
currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which
statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in that case
he would have no claim as the neighbour is not enriched any longer. G can rely on the real
action for tending to another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. In
terms of this action he can reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve
his neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because
the bull died.

Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour is
currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is a
meddlesome neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his
farm under any circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any problem. G
did not bother to call K. Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim
against H? Answer: In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because
he has acted against the express instructions of his neighbour. He can only rely on the actio
negotiorum gestorum utilis, which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died, the
neighbour is no longer enriched.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail because
the bull died.

Question 10:

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's

property?
Answer: A bona fide occupier's possession is always unlawful. A possessor always
occupies as if it is the owner, not as a lessee.
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property of
another person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another person as if he
is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
_________________________________________________________________________

Question 1 to 3.
The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B
is owing. B has checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide
belief that
the amount is owing in terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his
bookkeeper, C had
already paid the amount a week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer in
to the
account of A. At the time of the second payment A's account was overdrawn
in the
amount of R30,000 and was therefore in credit of R20,000 after the payment. A
has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay his employees their monthly wages.
He has
also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend after realising that his account was
in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements.
The claim
cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim
can also
not be based on the contract, because there had already been payment
which extinguished
the duty to pay in terms of the contract. Next evaluate the answers against the
requirements of
the condictio indebiti. Here the one party made a bona fide payment that was not
owing and
under circumstances that were excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by
A's
misrepresentation.
Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of the claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa
non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.

Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person
who in law
is regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made the
payment. At the
time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment
therefore
cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is
not unlawful
because A's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of
its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly the bank
was not
impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability
and the
condictio indebiti have been complied with.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it
was
not due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.
Question 3
Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money.
The fact
that his overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have
decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his
enrichment to
diminish as those are expense he would have had in any event. The cost of the
luxury holiday,
however, does constitute an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not
have made
these expenses if his account had not been in credit. There is no indication on the
facts provided that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the
bank received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been spent
on
the wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been
lost on the
luxury holiday.
Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness
is not
a requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party
must have

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

made a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.

In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the
plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct
Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio sine
causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is
contractual and
not in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action
is the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the
condictio causa data causa non secuta.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and
protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the payment
later
falls away.
Question 6-7
The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on
the
property it is renting from Z. It can be shown that the value of the property has
increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying
Y for
the work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions
in Gouws v Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was
decided that
Y only had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against
the
owner, Z. In the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate
division.
Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y
can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. X has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.
Question 7
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer in

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it
was held
that Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it
was held
that Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd
v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)
Question 8
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour
is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which
statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in
that case he
would have no claim as the neighbour is not enriched any longer. G can rely on the
real action
for tending to another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria.
In terms of
this action he can reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve
his neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been
wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for
R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail
because
the bull died.
Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour
is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is
a meddlesome
neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under
any
circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did
not bother to
call K. Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Answer: In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has
acted
against the express instructions of his neighbour. He can only rely on the
actio negotiorum
gestorum utilis, which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died, the
neighbour is no
longer enriched.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have
been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for
R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail
because
the bull died.
Question 10:
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of
another's property?
Answer: A bona fide occupier's possession is always unlawful. A possessor
always occupies
as if it is the owner, not as a lessee.
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another
person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another
person
as if he is the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person
as if he is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person
temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Answer: See Study guide 1, par 14.3.
Indicate which one of the following statements most correctly describes the
existence
of a general enrichment action in South African law:
1. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a
general enrichment action in South African law.
2. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a
general enrichment action in South African law.
3. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in
South African law.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

4. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South African
law.
5. Although the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action
in
South African law in Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A), the existence of such an
action has since been recognised in the case law.
(1)
Question 2
Answer : The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam is used in cases of unlawful
contracts
(see Study guide 1, par 5.4). The condictio causa data causa non secuta is used
in cases
where the contract of sale was entered into subject to a condition (see Study guide 1,
par 6.4).
The condictio sine causa specialis is used in instances where performance was due,
but the
causa for performance fell away at a later stage (see Study guide 1, par 7.4).
The condictio
indebiti is used in instances where performance is rendered in the mistaken belief that it
was
due or owing at the time it is done (see Study guide 1, par 3.4). The actio negotiorum
gestorum utilis is used in instances where a person is managing someone else’s affairs
(see
Study guide 1, par 8.4). In this instance the contract of sale is not unlawful, but void due
to
initial impossibility. It is thus not a case of performance that was due at the time of
performance and the causa fell away later, but rather a case of mistaken belief that
performance was owing at the time it was made. The correct option is therefore 4.
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R
50,000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of
the conclusion of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of
the contract
when he was kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy
a new
young foal for R15,000, to pay his workers weekly wages of R 8,000, to pay his
overdraft of
R 10,000 and to pay for a luxury weekend away of R 12,000. There remains R 5,000
of the
money in his savings account with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void
due to
initial impossibility.
Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio causa data causa non secuta.
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

condictio sine causa specialis.

4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis.
(1)
Question 3
Answer : P will claim the full R50 000, but S could raise the defence that part of the
enrichment has fallen away. If S used the money to pay debts and wages, the
defence will not
succeed, because he saved expenses he would have had in any event. If S used the
money
to buy something he will be regarded as enriched to the extent of the value of the
goods. If S
spend the money on something that has no market value anymore, and it is not
something he
would have done if he was aware of the true facts, his defence will succeed. In this
case S has
been enriched by the R5 000 left in his savings account, the R15 000 paid for the foal
if we
assume that the value of the foal is still R15 000, the weekly wages of R8 000 and the
R10 000 of the overdraft. The luxury weekend has no market value afterwards and S
will succeed with the defence that the enrichment has fallen away in this respect, unless
he booked and planned the holiday irrespective of whether he sold Big Boy or not. The
correct
option is thus 5.
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best
explains the
quantum of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R 50,000 paid.
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in the savings account,
the R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R 8,000.
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in S’s savings account.
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in the savings account and
the R 15,000 paid for the foal.
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in the savings account, the
R 15,000 paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R 8,000 and the R 10,000 paid on
the overdraft.
(1)
Question 4
Answer : Options 2, 3 and 4 are correct – see Study Guide 1, par 5.4 and Jajhbay v
Cassim.
Option 1 is incorrect because of the word “never”. In instances where the par delictum
rule is
relaxed, a party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract may
still succeed if the court decides that the turpitude on the part of the plaintiff was less
than that on
the part of the defendant.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of
the condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam:

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can never have
an
enrichment claim against the other party.
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an
unlawful agreement.
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging
this enrichment
action.
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man”
when dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action.
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong.
(1)
Question 5
Answer : L is a lessee and thus a lawful occupier. A bona fide and mala fide
occupier are both
unlawfully on the premises and that is not the case here. A possessor is someone that
acts as
if he is the owner, which is also not the case here. The correct option is thus 1.
L is renting a farm from O for an amount of R 10,000 per month. Without notifying O,
L concludes a contract with R to build a new storeroom at a cost of R 100,000 and to
make
repairs to the roof of the house on the farm at a cost of R 15,000 because the roof
is leaking
and causing damage to the interior of the house.
Indicate which statement best explains L’s presence on O’s land:
1. L is a lawful occupier of the farm.
2. L is a bona fide occupier of the farm.
3. L is a bona fide possessor of the farm.
4. L is a mala fide occupier of the farm because he did not have the permission of O
to effect the improvements and repairs.
5. 1 and 3 are both correct.
(1)
Question 6
Answer : Because L is a lawful occupier, not a bona fide occupier, option 2 is
incorrect immediately. As a lessee of rural land the Placaaten will apply (see Study
guide 1, par 10.2.1)
and L will have a claim for his necessary and useful improvements to the extent that
the improvements increased the value of the farm. Option 1 refers to “all”
improvements, which is
too wide, and option 3 only refers to necessary improvements. The most correct option
is thus
5.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Indicate which statement best
explains L’s
possible claim:
1. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for the value of all of the
improvements affected to the farm.
2. L as bona fide occupier has an enrichment action against O to the extent that the
improvements increased the value of the farm.
3. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for only the value of the
necessary improvements effected to the farm, i.e. the repairs to the roof.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

4. L as lessee of rural land has no claim against O in terms of the Roman-

Dutch Placaaten
that still applies in South African law.
5. L as lessee of rural land has a claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch
Placaaten
that still applies in South African law.
Question 7
Answer : See Study guide 1, par 2.2.3. Options 2 and 4 are both correct.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Assume further that L has absconded after the
improvements were effected and cannot be found as he has apparently emigrated.
Indicate which statement best explains the case law on whether R will have a
claim
against O under these circumstances:
1. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) it
was held that under these circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the
improvements made to the farm.
2. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) the
question on whether R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made
to the farm under these circumstances, was left undecided.
3. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these
circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made to
the farm.
4. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these
circumstances R has no claim against O for the value of the improvements made to
the farm.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
(1)
Question 8
Answer : B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B
also does
not have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and therefore
B has
no enrichment claim against X.
B has bought an operating business from S for R 1.5 million. After B had taken over
the running of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B
with any
product until S has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R
50,000. B
pays S’s debt with X because he cannot operate the business without the
product supplied by
X. S refuses to repay the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any,
is available to
B against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis
(extended management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria
(true management of affairs action).
(1)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Question 9
Answer : As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void
or conditional
contract. B also does not have the intention to manage S’s affairs. B is paying a
debt owed by
S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt. He is making payment under the threat
that his
business will suffer a bigger loss if he doesn’t make the payment. Protesting against
an involuntary payment of a debt knowing that it is not owing could result in the
condictio indebiti
as the appropriate remedy. See Study guide 1, par 3.4, 4.6.
Assume the same facts as in question 8. Indicate which statement best
explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis
(extended management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria
(true management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of
S without
the permission of S.
(1)
Question 10
Answer : B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his enrichment
was for a
lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase price.
Assume the same facts as in Question 8. Further assume that the reason why S refused
to
pay X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for
the reduction
of the purchase price of those goods in an amount of R 13,000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R 50,000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R 37,000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R 50,000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of
S without
the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Answer: See Study guide 1, par 14.3.
Indicate which one of the following statements most correctly describes the
existence of
a general enrichment action in South African law:
1. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a
general enrichment action in South African law.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

2. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division rejected the existence
of
a general enrichment action in South African law.
3. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in
South African law.
4. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South African
law.
5. Although the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action
in
South African law in Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A), the existence of such an
action has since been recognised in the case law.
Question 2
Answer : The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam is used in cases of unlawful
contracts
(see Study guide 1, par 5.4). The condictio causa data causa non secuta is used
in cases
where the contract of sale was entered into subject to a condition (see Study guide 1,
par 6.4).
The condictio sine causa specialis is used in instances where performance was due,
but the
causa for performance fell away at a later stage (see Study guide 1, par 7.4).
The condictio
indebiti is used in instances where performance is rendered in the mistaken belief that
it was
due or owing at the time it is done (see Study guide 1, par 3.4). The actio negotiorum
gestorum
utilis is used in instances where a person is managing someone else’s affairs (see
Study guide
1, par 8.4). In this instance the contract of sale is not unlawful, but void due to
initial impossibility. It is thus not a case of performance that was due at the time of
performance and
the causa fell away later, but rather a case of mistaken belief that performance
was owing at the
time it was made. The correct option is therefore 4.
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price of R
50,000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of
the conclusion
of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when
he was
kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new
young foal for
R15,000, to pay his workers weekly wages of R 8,000, to pay his overdraft of R
10,000 and to
pay for a luxury weekend away of R 12,000. There remains R 5,000 of the money in
his savings
account with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void due to initial
impossibility. Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.

2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based on
the
condictio causa data causa non secuta.
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio sine causa specialis.
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price
based on
the condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis.
(1)
Question 3
Answer : P will claim the full R50 000, but S could raise the defence that part of
the enrichment
has fallen away. If S used the money to pay debts and wages, the defence will
not succeed,
because he saved expenses he would have had in any event. If S used the money
to buy
something he will be regarded as enriched to the extent of the value of the goods. If
S spend
the money on something that has no market value anymore, and it is not something
he would
have done if he was aware of the true facts, his defence will succeed. In this case S has
been
enriched by the R5 000 left in his savings account, the R15 000 paid for the foal if we
assume
that the value of the foal is still R15 000, the weekly wages of R8 000 and the R10
000 of the
overdraft. The luxury weekend has no market value afterwards and S will succeed
with the
defence that the enrichment has fallen away in this respect, unless he booked
and planned the
holiday irrespective of whether he sold Big Boy or not. The correct option is thus 5.
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best
explains the
quantum of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R 50,000 paid.
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in the savings account,
the R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R 8,000.
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in S’s savings account.
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in the savings account and the
R 15,000 paid for the foal.
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R 5,000 left in the savings account, the R
15,000 paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R 8,000 and the R 10,000 paid on
the overdraft.
(1)
Question 4
Answer : Options 2, 3 and 4 are correct – see Study Guide 1, par 5.4 and Jajhbay v
Cassim.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Option 1 is incorrect because of the word “never”. In instances where the par delictum
rule is
relaxed, a party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract may
still succeed
if the court decides that the turpitude on the part of the plaintiff was less than that on
the part of
the defendant.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of
the condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam:
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can
never have an enrichment claim against the other party.
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an
unlawful agreement.
3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging
this enrichment
action.
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man” when
dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action.
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong.
(1)
Question 5
Answer : L is a lessee and thus a lawful occupier. A bona fide and mala fide
occupier are both
unlawfully on the premises and that is not the case here. A possessor is someone that
acts as if
he is the owner, which is also not the case here. The correct option is thus 1.
L is renting a farm from O for an amount of R 10,000 per month. Without notifying O,
L concludes a contract with R to build a new storeroom at a cost of R 100,000 and to
make
repairs to the roof of the house on the farm at a cost of R 15,000 because the roof
is leaking
and causing damage to the interior of the house.
Indicate which statement best explains L’s presence on O’s land:
1. L is a lawful occupier of the farm.
2. L is a bona fide occupier of the farm.
3. L is a bona fide possessor of the farm.
4. L is a mala fide occupier of the farm because he did not have the permission of O
to effect the improvements and repairs.
5. 1 and 3 are both correct.
(1)
Question 6
Answer : Because L is a lawful occupier, not a bona fide occupier, option 2 is
incorrect immediately. As a lessee of rural land the Placaaten will apply (see Study
guide 1, par 10.2.1)
and L will not have a claim for his necessary and useful improvements because it was
made
without the permission of the owner. The correct option is thus 4.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Indicate which statement best
explains L’s
possible claim:

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

1. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for the value of all of the
improvements affected to the farm.
2. L as bona fide occupier has an enrichment action against O to the extent that the
improvements increased the value of the farm.
3. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for only the value of the
necessary improvements effected to the farm, i.e. the repairs to the roof.
4. L as lessee of rural land has no claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch
Placaaten that still applies in South African law.
5. L as lessee of rural land has a claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch
Placaaten
that still applies in South African law.
(1)
Question 7
Answer : See Study guide 1, par 2.2.3. Options 2 and 4 are both correct.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Assume further that L has absconded after the
improvements were effected and cannot be found as he has apparently emigrated.
Indicate which statement best explains the case law on whether R will have
a claim
against O under these circumstances:
1. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) it
was held that under these circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the
improvements made to the farm.
2. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) the
question on whether R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made
to the farm under these circumstances, was left undecided.
3. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these
circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made to
the farm.
4. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these
circumstances R has no claim against O for the value of the improvements made to
the farm.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
Question 8
Answer : B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B
also does
not have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and
therefore B has
no enrichment claim against X.
B has bought an operating business from S for R 1.5 million. After B had taken over
the running
of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any
product until S
has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R 50,000. B pays
S’s debt with
X because he cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S
refuses to
repay the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is
available to B
against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.

4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis
(extended management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria
(true management of affairs action).
(1)
Question 9
Answer : As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void
or conditional
contract. B is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt
and therefore
the condictio indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to advance his own
interests
and therefore the true management of affairs action will not be available to him.
In Odendaal v
Van Oudtshoorn 1968 3 SA 433 (T) the court held that the extended management of
affairs
action will be available in these circumstances. See Study guide 1, par 8.4.2. The
correct option
is thus 3.
Assume the same facts as in question 8. Indicate which statement best
explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum
utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria
(true management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of
S without
the permission of S.
Question 10
Answer : B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his enrichment
was for a
lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase price.
Assume the same facts as in Question 8. Further assume that the reason why S refused
to pay
X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for the
reduction of the
purchase price of those goods in an amount of R 13,000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R 50,000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R 37,000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R 50,000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of
S without
the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Questions 1 to 3.
The following facts are relevant for questions 1 to 3.
A has demanded payment from B of an amount of R50,000 which he believes B
is owing. B has
checked its records and has paid the amount in the bona fide belief that the amount
is owing in
terms of their contract. Unbeknown to B, his bookkeeper, C had already paid the
amount a
week earlier by way of an electronic funds transfer in to the account of A. At the time
of the
second payment A's account was overdrawn in the amount of R30,000 and
was therefore in
credit of R20,000 after the payment. A has taken R15,000 out of his account to pay
his employees their monthly wages. He has also paid R10,000 for a luxury weekend
after realising
that his account was in credit.
Answer: These questions deal with the condictio indebiti and its requirements.
The claim
cannot be delictual because A's misrepresentation was innocently made. The claim
can also not
be based on the contract, because there had already been payment which
extinguished the
duty to pay in terms of the contract. Next evaluate the answers against the
requirements of the
condictio indebiti. Here the one party made a bona fide payment that was not owing
and under
circumstances that were excusable, partly because the mistake was induced by
A's misrepresentation.
Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature B’s the claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa
non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.
Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person
who in law
is regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made the
payment. At the
time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment
therefore
cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is
not unlawful
because A's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of
its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly the bank
was not
impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability
and the
condictio indebiti have been complied with.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.

2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it
was not
due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.

Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money.

The fact
that his overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have
decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his
enrichment to
diminish as those are expense he would have had in any event. The cost of the
luxury holiday,
however, does constitute an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not
have made
these expenses if his account had not been in credit. There is no indication on the
facts provided that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the
bank received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been
spent on the
wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been
lost on the
luxury holiday.
Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness
is not a
requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party
must have made
a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the
plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):
1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct
Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio
sine causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is contractual
and not
in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is the
condictio

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the condictio
sine
causa.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and
protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the
payment later
falls away.
Question 6-7
The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on
the
property it is renting from Z in Pretoria. It can be shown that the value of
the property has
increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying
Y for the
work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions
in Gouws
v Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that Y
only
had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against
the owner, Z. In
the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.
Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y
can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.
Question 7
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer
in question 6?
1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it
was held that
Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it
was held that
Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd
v Knoetze

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

& Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)

Question 8
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour
is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which
statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in
that case he
would have no claim as the neighbour is not enriched any longer. G can rely on the
real action
for tending to another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. In
terms of
this action he can reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve
his neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have
been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for
R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail
because the
bull died.
Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour
is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is
a meddlesome
neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under
any
circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did
not bother to
call K. Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has
acted
against the express instructions of his neighbour. He can only rely on the
actio negotiorum
gestorum utilis, which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died, the
neighbour is no
longer enriched.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been
wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for
R12,000.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail
because the
bull died.
Question 10
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of another's
property?
Answer: A bona fide occupier's possession is always unlawful. A possessor
always occupies
as if it is the owner, not as a lessee.
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another
person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another
person as
if he is the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person
as if he is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person
temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Answer: See Study guide 1, par 14.3.
Indicate which one of the following statements most correctly describes the
existence of
a general enrichment action in South African law:
1. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of
a
general enrichment action in South African law.
2. In Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division rejected the existence
of
a general enrichment action in South African law.
3. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A)
the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in
South African law.
4. In Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A) the
Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action in South African
law.
5. Although the Appellate Division rejected the existence of a general enrichment action
in
South African law in Nortjé v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A), the existence of such an
action has since been recognised in the case law.
(1)
Question 2
Answer : The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam is used in cases of unlawful
contracts

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

(see Study guide 1, par 5.4). The condictio causa data causa non secuta is used
in cases
where the contract of sale was entered into subject to a condition (see Study guide
1, par 6.4).
The condictio sine causa specialis is used in instances where performance was due,
but the
causa for performance fell away at a later stage (see Study guide 1, par 7.4).
The condictio
indebiti is used in instances where performance is rendered in the mistaken belief that
it was
due or owing at the time it is done (see Study guide 1, par 3.4). The actio negotiorum
gestorum
utilis is used in instances where a person is managing someone else’s affairs (see
Study guide 1, par 8.4). In this instance the contract of sale is not unlawful, but void due
to initial
impossibility. It is thus not a case of performance that was due at the time
of performance and
the causa fell away later, but rather a case of mistaken belief that performance
was owing at the
time it was made. The correct option is therefore 4.
S has concluded a contract with P for the sale of his horse, Big Boy, at a price
of R50,000. P
immediately paid the purchase price to S. Unknown to both parties at the time of
the conclusion
of the contract, Big Boy had died the day before the conclusion of the contract when
he was
kicked by another horse. S immediately used the purchase price to buy a new
young foal for
R15,000, to pay his workers weekly wages of R8,000, to pay his overdraft of
R10,000 and to
pay for a luxury weekend away of R12,000. There remains R5,000 of the money in his
savings
account with the bank. This contract of sale is, however, void due to initial
impossibility. Which statement best explains the basis of P’s claim against S?
1. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.
2. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio causa data causa non secuta.
3. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
condictio sine causa specialis.
4. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price
based on
the condictio indebiti.
5. P has an enrichment claim against S for repayment of the purchase price based
on the
actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis.
(1)
Question 3

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

Answer : P will claim the full R50 000, but S could raise the defence that part of
the enrichment
has fallen away. If S used the money to pay debts and wages, the defence will
not succeed,
because he saved expenses he would have had in any event. If S used the money
to buy
something he will be regarded as enriched to the extent of the value of the goods. If
S spend
the money on something that has no market value anymore, and it is not something
he would
have done if he was aware of the true facts, his defence will succeed. In this case S has
been
enriched by the R5 000 left in his savings account, the R15 000 paid for the foal if
we assume
that the value of the foal is still R15 000, the weekly wages of R8 000 and the R10
000 of the
overdraft. The luxury weekend has no market value afterwards and S will succeed
with the
defence that the enrichment has fallen away in this respect, unless he booked
and planned the
holiday irrespective of whether he sold Big Boy or not. The correct option is thus 5.
Assume the same facts as in Question 2. Indicate which statement best
explains the
quantum of P’s enrichment claim:
1. P has an enrichment claim for the full R50,000 paid.
2. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in the savings account,
the R 15,000 paid for the foal and the weekly wages paid of R8,000.
3. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in S’s savings account.
4. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in the savings account and
the R15,000 paid for the foal.
5. P has an enrichment claim only for the R5,000 left in the savings account,
the R15,000 paid for the foal, the weekly wages paid of R8,000 and the R10,000
paid on
the overdraft.
Question 4
Answer : Options 2, 3 and 4 are correct – see Study Guide 1, par 5.4 and Jajhbay v
Cassim.
Option 1 is incorrect because of the word “never”. In instances where the par delictum
rule is
relaxed, a party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract may
still succeed
if the court decides that the turpitude on the part of the plaintiff was less than that on
the part of
the defendant.
Indicate which one of the following is not a correct statement in respect of
the condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam:
1. A party who acted with knowledge of the unlawfulness of the contract can
never have an enrichment claim against the other party.
2. Performance by the plaintiff must have taken place as a result of an
unlawful agreement.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

3. The plaintiff must offer to return any performance received when lodging this
enrichment
action.
4. The court has an equitable discretion to “do justice between man and man”
when dealing
with claims based on this enrichment action.
5. 1 and 4 are both wrong.
(1)
Question 5
Answer : L is a lessee and thus a lawful occupier. A bona fide and mala fide
occupier are both
unlawfully on the premises and that is not the case here. A possessor is someone that
acts as if
he is the owner, which is also not the case here. The correct option is thus 1.
L is renting a farm from O for an amount of R10,000 per month. Without notifying O, L
concludes a contract with R to build a new storeroom at a cost of R100,000 and to
make repairs
to the roof of the house on the farm at a cost of R15,000 because the roof is leaking
and causing damage to the interior of the house.
Indicate which statement best explains L’s presence on O’s land:
1. L is a lawful occupier of the farm.
2. L is a bona fide occupier of the farm.
3. L is a bona fide possessor of the farm.
4. L is a mala fide occupier of the farm because he did not have the permission of O
to effect the improvements and repairs.
5. 1 and 3 are both correct.
(1)
Question 6
Answer : Because L is a lawful occupier, not a bona fide occupier, option 2 is incorrect
immediately. As a lessee of rural land the Placaaten will apply (see Study guide 1, par
10.2.1)
and L will not have a claim for his necessary and useful improvements because it was
made
without the permission of the owner. The correct option is thus 4.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Indicate which statement best
explains L’s
possible claim:
1. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for the value of all of the
improvements affected to the farm.
2. L as bona fide occupier has an enrichment action against O to the extent that the
improvements increased the value of the farm.
3. L as lawful occupier has an enrichment action against O for only the value of the
necessary improvements effected to the farm, i.e. the repairs to the roof.
4. L as lessee of rural land has no claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch
Placaaten that still applies in South African law.
5. L as lessee of rural land has a claim against O in terms of the Roman-Dutch
Placaaten
that still applies in South African law.
(1)
Question 7
Answer : See Study guide 1, par 2.2.3. Options 2 and 4 are both correct.
Assume the same facts as in Question 5. Assume further that L has absconded after the

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

improvements were effected and cannot be found as he has apparently emigrated.

Indicate which statement best explains the case law on whether R will have
a claim
against O under these circumstances:
1. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) it
was held that under these circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the
improvements made to the farm.
2. In Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A) the
question on whether R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made
to the farm under these circumstances, was left undecided.
3. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these
circumstances R has a claim against O for the value of the improvements made to
the farm.
4. In Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) it was held that under these
circumstances R has no claim against O for the value of the improvements made to
the farm.
5. 2 and 4 are both correct.
(1)
Question 8
Answer : B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void or conditional contract. B also
does
not have the intention to manage X’s affairs. B is paying a debt owed to X and
therefore B has
no enrichment claim against X.
B has bought an operating business from S for R1.5 million. After B had taken over
the running
of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with any
product until S
has settled a debt owed to X for goods delivered in an amount of R50,000. B pays S’s
debt with
X because he cannot operate the business without the product supplied by X. S refuses
to
repay the amount to B.
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is
available to B
against X:
1. B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.
2. B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.
3. B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
4. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum utilis
(extended management of affairs action).
5. B has a claim against X based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria
(true management of affairs action).
(1)
Question 9
Answer : As already stated, B’s payment is not in terms of an unlawful, void
or conditional
contract. B is paying a debt owed by S knowing that he (B) doesn’t owe the debt
and therefore
the condictio indebiti will not be available. B’s payment is made to advance his own
interests

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

and therefore the true management of affairs action will not be available to him.
In Odendaal v
Van Oudtshoorn 1968 3 SA 433 (T) the court held that the extended management of
affairs
action will be available in these circumstances. See Study guide 1, par 8.4.2. The
correct option
is thus 3.
Assume the same facts as in question 8. Indicate which statement best
explains which
enrichment action, if any, is available to B against S.
1. B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.
2. B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.
3. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum
utilis (extended
management of affairs action).
4. B has a claim against S based on the actio negiotiorum gestorum contraria
(true management of affairs action).
5. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of
S without
the permission of S.
(1)
Question 10
Answer : B will claim the full R50 000. S will raise the defence that his enrichment
was for a
lesser amount, because he had a valid claim for the reduction of the purchase price.
Assume the same facts as in Question 8. Further assume that the reason why S refused
to pay
X was because the goods delivered were defective. S had a valid claim for the
reduction of the
purchase price of those goods in an amount of R13,000.
Indicate which statement best explains the quantum of B’s claim, if any:
1. B has a claim against S for the full amount of R50,000.
2. B has a claim against S for only R37,000.
3. B has a claim against X for the full amount of R50,000.
4. B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of
S without
the permission of S.
5. 3 and 4 are both correct.
_________________________________________________________________________________

Question 1
Which statement best explains the nature of B’s claim against A?
1. B has a claim against A based on delict for a fraudulent misstatement.
2. B has contractual claim against A based on their contract.
3. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio causa data causa
non secuta.
4. B has an enrichment claim against A based on the condictio indebiti.
5. B has no claim against A because he paid the amount voluntarily.
Question 2
Answer: A's enrichment took place at the expense of B because B was the person
who in law

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

is regarded as the one who made the payment, even if C physically made the
payment. At the
time of the payment, the duty to pay had already been extinguished – the payment
therefore
cannot be in terms of the agreement, even if B thought so. The enrichment is
not unlawful
because A's conduct was not delictual in nature. The bank made payment in terms of
its agreement with B and is therefore entitled to debit B's account. Accordingly the bank
was not
impoverished. Consider whether all of the other requirements for enrichment liability
and the
condictio indebiti have been complied with.
Which statement regarding the requirements for an enrichment action is correct?
1. A has been enriched at the expense of B.
2. A has been enriched at the expense of C, who made the payment.
3. A's enrichment is not unjustified as there was a contract between A and B.
4. A's enrichment is unlawful because he made a demand for payment at a time that it
was not
due.
5. B has been impoverished at the expense of the bank.

Answer: A was initially enriched by an amount of R 50,000 on receipt of the money.

The fact
that his overdraft was extinguished does not diminish his enrichment as his debts have
decreased by R 20,000. The payment of the wages also does not cause his
enrichment to
diminish as those are expense he would have had in any event. The cost of the
luxury holiday,
however, does constitute an extinction of his enrichment, as he would probably not
have made
these expenses if his account had not been in credit. There is no indication on the
facts provided that A should have realised that he was enriched.
Which statement best explains the calculation of the enrichment claim?
1. B can claim an amount of R50,000 from A with an enrichment action.
2. B can only claim R20,000 from A because his account was overdrawn and the
bank received the benefit of the other R30,000.
3. B can claim nothing as A has not been unjustifiably enriched at his expense.
4. B can claim only R25,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been
spent on the
wages and A's holiday.
5. B can claim only R40,000 because the rest of the enrichment amount has been lost
on the
luxury holiday.
Question 4
Answer: Have another look at the requirements for the condictio indebiti. Unlawfulness
is not a
requirement. For the condictio indebiti it is required that the impoverished party
must have made
a payment that was not owing as a result of an excusable mistake.
In order to be successful with a claim based on the condictio indebiti, the
plaintiff must
prove the following fact(s) or requirement(s):

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

1. That the impoverished party made a payment that was not due.
2. That the enrichment was unlawful.
3. That the mistake of the impoverished party was excusable.
4. 1 and 3 are correct.
5. 1 and 2 and 3 are correct
Question 5
Answer: In the case of stopped checks the appropriate action is the condictio
sine causa
specialis. Where a contract is terminated due to breach, the action ground is
contractual and not
in enrichment. Where one is dealing with illegal contracts, the appropriate action is the
condictio
ob turpem vel iniustam causam. In instance number 5 the correct action is the condictio
sine
causa.
In which one of the following circumstances can the condictio indebiti be used?
1. Where a bank has made payment in terms of a countermanded cheque.
2. Where a party knowingly makes a payment that is not due, but under duress and
protest.
3. Where a contract is rescinded due to a breach of contract.
4. Where a party has made an undue payment in terms of an illegal contract.
5. Where a party has made payment which is due but where the cause for the
payment later
falls away.
Question 6-7
The following facts are relevant for Question 6 and 7.
X has concluded a contract with Y to build a tennis court at a cost of R40,000 on
the
property it is renting from Z in Pretoria. It can be shown that the value of
the property has
increased by R20,000 due to the improvement. X has disappeared before paying
Y for the
work done. Y now wants to lodge a claim against Z, the owner of the property.
Answer: This case deals with indirect enrichment. Have another look at the decisions
in Gouws
v Jester Pools and the Buzzard Electrical case. In the Gouws case it was decided that
Y only
had a contractual claim against the lessee, X and no enrichment action against
the owner, Z. In
the Buzzard Electrical case this issue was left undecided by the appellate division.
Question 6
Which statement best explains the ground on which and the amount that Y
can claim?
1. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R40,000.
2. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for an amount of R20,000.
3. Y has a contractual claim against X for R40,000.
4. Y has an enrichment claim against Z for R40,000.
5. Y has an enrichment claim against X for R 20,000.
Question 7
Which statement best explains the authority on which you based your answer
in question 6?

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

1. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it
was held that
Y has no claim against Z because Z had not been enriched at his expense.
2. In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) it
was held that
Y has a claim against Z because Z had been enriched at his expense.
3. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan
Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
4. The decision in the Gouws case was rejected in Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts
Avenue
Investments 1996 4 SA 19 (A)
5. The decision in the Gouws case was confirmed in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd
v Knoetze
& Sons 1970 3 SA 264 (A)
Question 8
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour
is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. Which
statement best
explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G does not have to rely on an enrichment claim, because in
that case he
would have no claim as the neighbour is not enriched any longer. G can rely on the
real action
for tending to another's property, namely the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria.
In terms of
this action he can reclaim all expenses reasonably made in the attempt to preserve
his neighbour's property.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have been
wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for
R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail
because the
bull died.
Question 9
G has noticed that his neighbour's (H) stud bull is seriously ill. The neighbour
is currently on a hiking trip in Nepal and cannot be reached. G has called out a
veterinary
doctor to attend to the bull and has paid all his bills as well as for the
medication. The
total cost was R12,000. Despite the treatment the bull has died. G is
a meddlesome
neighbour and H has previously warned him not to do anything on his farm under
any
circumstances, but rather to call K, if G should notice any problem. G did
not bother to

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

call K. Which statement best explains the basis of G's possible claim against H?
Answer: In this case G cannot rely on the true actio negotiorum gestio because he has
acted
against the express instructions of his neighbour. He can only rely on the
actio negotiorum
gestorum utilis, which is a true enrichment action. Because the bull died, the
neighbour is no
longer enriched.
1. G has no claim against H because the bull has died and the expenses have
been wasted.
2. G has an enrichment claim against H for his expenses as necessary expenses.
3. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria for
R12,000.
4. G has a claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis for R12,000.
5. G's claim against H in terms of the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria will fail
because the
bull died.
Question 10
Which statement correctly explains the possession or occupation of
another's property?
Answer: A bona fide occupier's possession is always unlawful. A possessor
always occupies
as if it is the owner, not as a lessee.
1. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another
person.
2. A bona fide occupier is someone who lawfully occupies the immovable property
of another
person as if he is the owner thereof.
3. A bona fide possessor is someone who lawfully occupies the property of another
person as
if he is the owner thereof.
4. A bona fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of another
person
as if he is the owner thereof.
5. A mala fide possessor is someone who unlawfully occupies the property of
another person
temporarily as if he is entitled to occupy the property as a lessee.

***END***

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

UNIVERSITY EXAMINATIONS

May/June 2020

PVL3704

Enrichment Liability & Estoppel

100 Marks
Duration 2 Hours

This paper consists of 21 pages.

Instructions:

1. The examination consists of Multiple-Choice Question types only.

2. The examination question paper counts 100 marks and consists of 50 Multiple-Choice
Questions each worth 2 marks. Answer all of the questions.

3. The duration of the examination is 2 hours. You will be allowed a further thirty (30) minutes
after the conclusion of the official examination period to upload your examination responses
(answers) onto the myUnisa platform for further processing.

4. This is a closed-book examination. While the examination is in progress, you are not allowed to
consult another person or any source in order to assist you to answer any of the questions
contained in this question paper. You may also not assist another student in answering any of the
questions contained in this question paper.

5. The answers to this MCQ examination may only be submitted online on myUnisa. The Unisa
MCQ App cannot be used for examination submissions.

5.1 Access myUnisa at https://my.unisa.ac.za/portal and login using your student number and
myUnisa password.

5.2 Click on the “myAdmin” tab in the top navigation.

5.3 In the “Assessments” submenu, click on the “Assessment Info” tool in the drop-down list.
 A list of all available assessments will display.
 Find the corresponding examination assessment number for your module.
 Click on the Submit link in the Action column and follow the steps described below.

Step 1: Enter the total number of questions required for the assessment.
 Enter the total number of questions for your assessment in the Number of Questions
field.
 Click on the Continue button.

Open Rubric
Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)
 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

2 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Step 2: Fill out multiple-choice question answers.

The number of questions requested in the previous step will now be displayed with five answer
options next to each one. Please note that each row represents a question in your assignment.
 Click on the radio button [the small circle] that corresponds to your answer for that
question.
 Click on the Continue button to move to step 3.
 If you want to restart the assignment, click on Clear Form to remove all your selections
and start from new.

Step 3: Verify the answers to your multiple-choice assignment

This screen presents a summary of all your answers. Use it as a final check.
 Click on the Continue button to submit your assignment. If you do not click Continue, no
submission action will take place.
 If you want to redo the answers to the assignment, click Back to go back to the previous
step.

Step 4: Assessment submission report.

This is your proof that your examination answers were successfully submitted. If you do
not see this screen, Unisa has not received your submission.

It is advisable to print this page or make a screen capture for record purposes. A copy of this
page will also be emailed to your myLife email account.

PLEASE NOTE:
If you experience technical problems, of any kind, on the day of the examination and your examination
answers are not submitted by the cut-off time, you will be marked as absent and automatically deferred
to the October/November 2020 examination. No other type of submission of your examination answers
will be accepted.

Plan each answer before you commit to an option.

Choose the most correct option in every instance.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

3 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

UNJUSTIFIED ENRICHMENT
Question 1

Which one of the following statements does not constitute enrichment according to Nortjé v Pool
1966 (3) SA 96 (A)?

1 The plaintiff transfers money to the defendant.

2 The plaintiff builds a house on the defendant’s property.

3 The plaintiff prospects for and finds valuable minerals on the property of the defendant.

4 The plaintiff pays the debt of the defendant to another party.

5 The plaintiff repairs the defendant’s car. (2)

Question 2

Which one of the following statements does not constitute impoverishment for the purposes of a
claim in unjustified enrichment?

1 The plaintiff pays money by mistake to the defendant.

2 The plaintiff pays the debt of the defendant to another party.

3 The plaintiff performs in terms of an illegal contract.

4 The defendant uses the plaintiff’s lapa and swimming pool to entertain his friends without
the plaintiff’s permission while the plaintiff is away on business.

5 The plaintiff repairs the defendant’s car. (2)

Question 3
Which one of the following does not constitute indirect enrichment?

(1) A builds a lapa for B in terms of a contract on property he believes belongs to B, but which
actually belongs to C.

(2) A contracts with B to store property which he believes belongs to B, but which actually
belongs to C.

(3) A takes out a life insurance policy with insurer B for the benefit of his son C.

(4) A contracts with B to supply the roof timber of a house that B is building for C, but B
cannot pay A.

(5) A contracts with B to repair a car that he believes belongs to B, but which actually belongs
to C. (2)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

4 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Question 4
Which one of the following statements constitutes enrichment obtained sine causa?

1 A must pay a sum of money to B in accordance with a court order, even though A believes
with reason that the money is not owed.

2 A receives an inheritance from B, a distant relative whom A did not know.

3 A acquires ownership in the property of B due to acquisitive prescription.

4 A sells his house to B at a highly inflated price.

5 A pays B the purchase price to buy B’s house, but the agreement of sale does not comply
with the statutory formalities for such agreements. (2)

Question 5
Which one of the following statements is the most correct?

1 A claim in enrichment is primarily aimed at compensating the impoverished party for his or
her loss.

2 A claim in enrichment is primarily aimed at having a specific item retransferred in

ownership to the impoverished party.

3 A claim in enrichment is primarily aimed at claiming undue profits made by the enriched
party.

4 A claim in enrichment is primarily aimed at claiming interest from the enriched party.

5 A claim in enrichment is primarily aimed at claiming specific performance due to breach of

contract. (2)

Question 6
On what date is enrichment liability generally fixed?

1 On the date of impoverishment.

2 On the date of enrichment.

3 On the date upon which the enrichment claim is lodged.

4 On the date upon which interest begins to accrue.

5 From the date of judgment by a court. (2)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

5 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Question 7
Which statement best describes the manner in which the extent (quantum) of the enrichment is
calculated in the case of a fully developed enrichment action?

1 The impoverished party is entitled to reasonably claim the full extent of its
impoverishment.

2 The impoverished party is entitled to reasonably claim the full extent of the other
party’s enrichment.

3 The impoverished party is entitled to claim the lesser of its own expenses and the
extent of the value remaining in the hands of the enriched party.

4 The impoverished party is entitled to claim the lesser of its own expenses and the
extent of the value remaining in the hands of the enriched party taking into account
beneficial side effects of the impoverishment and the detrimental side effects of the
enrichment.

5 The impoverished party is entitled to claim benefits that the enriched party could
have derived from the enrichment, but negligently failed to do so. (2)
The following facts are relevant for questions 8 to 13 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):
A concluded a sale with B for the purchase of 100 000,00 litres of crude oil in transit on
the ship Miss Fortuna for R20 000 000,00. A paid a deposit of R1 000 000,00. A had to
make use of an overdraft facility to pay the deposit on which it paid interest at the rate of
14% per year. A and B were both unaware of the fact that the ship had already sunk and
lost its full cargo at the time of the conclusion of the contract. B had an overdraft of
R500 000,00 with its bank C which was subject to the payment of interest at 12% per year.
C bank set-off R500 000,00 of the deposit against B’s overdraft, extinguishing the
overdraft amount completely. The rest of the money was left in B’s current account
where it earned interest at a rate of 7.5% per year.
Question 8
Which statement best describes the extent of A’s claim against B, if A should have a claim
against B?

1 A has a claim for R1 000 000,00 only.

2 A has a claim for R1 000 000,00 plus the interest that A had to pay on its overdraft
facility on the deposit.

3 A has a claim for R1 000 000,00 plus the interest that B saved on its overdraft
facility.

4 A has a claim for R1 000 000,00 plus the interest that A had to pay on its overdraft
facility on the deposit, plus the interest that B saved on its overdraft facility, and plus
the interest that B earned on the balance of the deposit left in its current account.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

6 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

5 A has a claim for the lesser of R1 000 000,00 plus the interest saved by B on its
overdraft facility and R1 000 000,00 plus the interest A paid on its own overdraft
facility. (2)
Question 9
Indicate which enrichment action underlies the claim that A may have against B.

1 The condictio indebiti.

2 The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.

3 The condictio causa data causa non secuta.

4 The condictio sine causa generalis.

5 The condictio ob finitam causam. (2)

Question 10
Which statement best explains the answer to question 9?

1 Initially there was a contract but it fell away due to impossibility.

2 The claim does not fit under the standard traditional condictiones.

3 The claim is based on an assumption that proved to be false.

4 The claim is based on a contract that was void from the beginning due to
impossibility.

5 The parties did not determine whether their agreement was legal or not beforehand. (2)
Assume further that B is liquidated before A can institute its claim and the liquidator has
the remaining R500 000,00 in B’s current account frozen for the benefit of all B’s
creditors.
Question 11
Which statement best describes whether A has a claim against C bank?

1 A has a claim for the R 500 000,00 remaining in B’s frozen current account only.

2 A has a claim for the R 500 000,00 that C bank set-off against B’s outstanding
overdraft only.

3 A has a claim for the R 500 000,00 remaining in B’s frozen current account and the R
500 000,00 that C bank set-off against B’s outstanding overdraft.

4 A has no claim against C bank.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

7 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

5 A has no claim against C bank because it still has a claim against B personally. (2)
Question 12
Which statement best explains the answer to question 11?

1 A has an enrichment claim for the R 500 000,00 remaining in B’s frozen current
account because it is A’s money that the bank is merely holding.

2 A has an enrichment claim for the R 500 000,00 that C bank set-off against B’s
outstanding overdraft because A was impoverished and the bank was enriched sine
causa at A’s expense in this amount.

3 A has an enrichment claim for the R 500 000,00 remaining in B’s frozen current
account and the R 500 000,00 that C bank set-off against B’s outstanding overdraft
for the reasons stated in options 1 and 2 above.

4 A has no enrichment claim against C bank because the bank was not enriched: it lost
its contractual claim against B when it applied set-off and the money remaining in B’s
frozen current account is controlled by the liquidator.

5 A has no enrichment claim against C bank because it still has a claim against B
personally who was unjustifiably enriched. (2)
Question 13
Which case best substantiates the answer to question 12?

1 Leeuw v First National Bank Ltd 2010 (3) SA 410 (SCA).

2 ABSA Bank Ltd v Lombard Insurance Co Ltd 2012 (6) SA 569 (SCA).

3 First National Bank of SA Ltd v Perry and Others 2001 (3) SA 960 (SCA).

4 CIR v Visser 1959 (1) SA 452 (A).

5 Willis Faber Enthoven (Pty) Ltd v Receiver of Revenue 1992 (4) SA 202 (A). (2)

The following facts are relevant for questions 14-16 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):

B has bought an operating business from S for R1 500 000,00. After B has taken over the
running of the business, X, a major supplier to the business, refuses to supply B with
any products until S settles a debt owed to X for goods previously delivered in an
amount of R 50,000. B pays S’s debt to X because he could not operate the business
without the products supplied by X. S refuses to repay the amount of R 50,000 to B.

Question 14

Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B against
X:

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

8 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

1 B has no claim against X in terms of any enrichment action.

2 B has a claim against X based on the condictio indebiti.

3 B has a claim against X based on the condictio sine causa specialis.

4 B has a claim against X based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.

5 B has a claim against X based on the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. (2)

Question 15

Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to B against
S.

1 B has a claim against S based on the condictio indebiti.

2 B has a claim against S based on the condictio sine causa specialis.

3 B has a claim against S based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.

4 B has a claim against S based on the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria.

5 B has no claim against S because he is not entitled to meddle in the affairs of S without
the permission of S. (2)

Question 16

Which case best substantiates the answer to question 15?

1 Shaw v Kirby 1924 GWL 33.

2 Van Staden v Pretorius 1965 (1) SA 852 (T).

3 Harman’s Estate v Bartholomew 1955 (2) SA 302 (N).

4 Odendaal v Van Oudtshoorn 1968 (3) SA 433 (T).

5 Herbert Erking (Pty) Ltd v Nolan 1965 (2) PH 38 (T). (2)

The following facts are relevant for questions 17-20 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):

A operates a successful swimming pool business. He uses pool pumps supplied by B at

a price of R5,000 per pump. A installs a pool for C at a price of R50 000,00. A purchases a
pump from B which A uses in C’s pool. However, the pump is defective and C refuses to
pay A the price for the pool due to the defective pump. A in turn cancels his contract with
B.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

9 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Question 17

Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the claim, if any, that A has against C:

1 A has no claim against C because C has successfully invoked the exceptio non adimpleti
contractus.

2 A has an enrichment claim against C for R45 000,00.

3 A has a claim against C for R45 000,00 based on the actio negotiorum gestorum
contraria.

4 A has a claim against C for a reduced contract price depending on the amount necessary
to remedy the defective pump.

5 A may institute the rei vindicatio against C. (2)

Question 18

Which case best substantiates the answer to question 17?

1 Gouws v Gester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 653 (T).

2 Absa Bank Ltd v Stander 1998 (1) SA 929 (C).

3 BK Tooling (Edms) Bpk v Scope Precision Engineering (Edms) Bpk 1979 (1) SA 391 (A).

4 Rahim v Minister of Justice 1964 (4) SA 630 (A).

5 Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A). (2)

Question 19

Indicate which statement best explains the nature of the claim, if any, that A has against B:

1 A has no claim against B because A has cancelled the contract he had with B.

2 A has an enrichment claim against B for R5 000,00.

3 A has a claim for restitution against B based on the principles applicable to breach of
contract and its remedies.

4 A has a claim against B for R5 000,00 based on the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria.

5 A has a contractual claim against B for a reduction in the purchase price depending on the
amount necessary to remedy the defective pump. (2)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

10 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Question 20

Which case best substantiates the answer to question 19?

1 Baker v Probert 1985 (3) SA 429 (A).

2 Wilken v Kohler 1913 AD 135.

3 Gouws v Gester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 653 (T).

4 Rahim v Minister of Justice 1964 (4) SA 630 (A)

5 Buzzard Electrical v 158 Jan Smuts Avenue Investments 1996 (4) SA 19 (A). (2)

Question 21

Which element of enrichment liability did the court in B & H Engineering v First National Bank of
SA Ltd 1995 (2) SA 279 (A) find was lacking when a bank inadvertently paid out the value of a
countermanded cheque?

1 Impoverishment.

2 Enrichment.

3 The sine causa requirement.

4 The ‘at the expense of’ requirement.

5 An appropriate action. (2)

Question 22
The element referred to in question 21 was absent because -

1 an underlying debt had been extinguished.

2 there is no enrichment action that can be applied in such circumstances.

3 there was breach of contract between the parties.

4 the bank was to blame for its own mistake.

5 there was no causal connection between the payment of the money by the bank and the
receipt thereof by the beneficiary. (2)
The following facts are relevant to questions 23-25 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

11 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

E is renting offices from F. After two years of occupancy, E refurbishes the offices,
expending the following amounts: R140 000,00 on repartitioning the offices to address
the specific needs of E’s business, which is unlike any other; R120 000,00 on upgrading
of the bathrooms; R125 000,00 on repairing the roof that was leaking; and R135 000,00 on
the installation of new air-conditioning units because the old units did not function
properly. The lease contract did not address the issue of improvements to the leased
premises. Shortly after the renovations F terminated the lease with three months’ notice,
as she was entitled to do under the existing contract.
Question 23
Which statement best explains E’s occupancy of the premises?

1 E is a mala fide occupier as he knows that the lease has been cancelled.

2 E is a bona fide occupier even though the lease has been validly cancelled.

3 E is an unlawful occupier because the lease has been cancelled.

4 E is a lawful occupier even though the lease has been validly cancelled.

5 E is a holder at will after cancellation of the lease. (2)

Question 24
Indicate which statement best explains which enrichment action, if any, is available to E against
F.

1 E has a claim against F based on the condictio indebiti.

2 E has a claim against F based on the condictio sine causa specialis.

3 E has a claim against F based on the actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.

4 E has a claim against F based on the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria.

5 3 and 4. (2)
Question 25
Indicate which statement best explains which improvements E may claim for from F?

1 E may claim all his expenses since they were reasonable.

2 E may only claim for upgrading of the bathrooms, repairing the roof and the installation of
new air-conditioning units as useful, on the one hand, and necessary, on the other hand,
improvements.

3 E may only claim for repartitioning the offices because the other expenses were all for F’s
account and E therefore did the renovations at own risk without F’s permission.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

12 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

4 E may only claim for repairing the roof that was leaking and the installation of new air-
conditioning units because these were the only two items that required repair or
replacement.

5 E was mala fide in effecting the repairs and reparations and therefore he has no claim
against F. (2)
The following facts are relevant for questions 26-29 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):
A, an American tourist, has leased a vehicle from B. While travelling in the Eastern Cape,
the vehicle breaks down. The lease contract provides that A may not have the vehicle
towed, repaired or serviced without the express consent of B. A contracts with C, a
garage in East London, to repair the vehicle at a reasonable cost of R12 000,00. After two
days A leases another vehicle from X and completes his trip. A departs for America. C
wants to claim the R12 000,00 for the repairs to the vehicle from B.
Question 26
Which statement best explains whether C has a claim against B?

1 In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 (3) SA 563 (T) C has no
claim against B.

2 In terms of the decision in ABSA Bank t/a Bankfin v Stander t/a CAW Paneelkloppers
1998 1 SA 939 (C) C possibly has a claim against B based on unjustified enrichment.

3 In terms of the decision in Odendaal v Van Oudtshoorn 1968 3 SA 433 (T) it is unlikely
that C has a claim against B if he as gestor had acted contrary to the express wishes of
the dominus B.

4 All of the above.

5 None of the above. (2)

Question 27

Assuming that C does have a claim against B, indicate which action would be the most
appropriate in the circumstances.

1 The condictio indebiti.

2 The condictio sine causa specialis.

3 The condictio causa data causa non secuta.

4 The actio negotiorum gestorum utilis.

5 the actio negotiorum gestorum contraria. (2)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

13 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Question 28
Which general requirement for enrichment liability plays a prominent role in this factual
scenario?

1 Impoverishment.

2 Enrichment.

3 The sine causa requirement.

4 The ‘at the expense of’ requirement.

5 None of the above. (2)

Question 29
Which statement best explains whether C has a right of retention and the authority on which it is
based?

1 In terms of the decision in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA
264 (A) C has no right of retention in respect of the vehicle.

2 In terms of the decision in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA
264 (A) C has a right of retention against B in respect of the vehicle.

3 In terms of the decision in Brooklyn House Furnishers Ltd v Knoetze & Sons 1970 3 SA
264 (A) C has a right of right retention against A in respect of the vehicle.

4 In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) C has a right
of retention against B in respect of the vehicle.

5 In terms of the decision in Gouws v Jester Pools (Pty) Ltd 1968 3 SA 63 (T) C has a right
of retention against A in respect of the vehicle. (2)
Question 30

Which statement is most correct regarding a general enrichment action in South African law?

1 In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South Africa without any qualifications.

2 In Nortje v Pool 1966 3 SA 96 (A) the Appellate Division recognised the existence of a
general enrichment action in South Africa, but with certain qualifications.

3 In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a general enrichment action in South Africa.

4 In McCarthy Retail Ltd v Shortdistance Carriers CC 2001 (3) SA 482 (SCA) the Supreme
Court of Appeal stated obiter that there is in fact a common law basis for the acceptance of a
general enrichment action, at least one of a subsidiary nature.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

14 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

5 In Kommissaris van Binnelandse Inkomste v Willers 1994 3 SA 283 (A) the Appellate
Division recognised the existence of a subsidiary, general enrichment action in South
Africa. (2)

ESTOPPEL

Question 31

Indicate which one of the following is not a requirement for a valid reliance on estoppel:

1 There must have been a material misrepresentation.

2 The person denying estoppel must have made the misrepresentation intentionally to
mislead the person relying on the estoppel.

3 The misrepresentation must have caused prejudice or detriment to the person relying on
estoppel.

4 The misrepresentation must have been causally related to detrimental conduct on the part
of the person relying on estoppel.

5 The reliance on estoppel must be allowed by law. (2)

Question 32

Choose the correct option. In order for estoppel to succeed a representation should be -

1 one of opinion.

2 one of intention.

3 one of future intention.

4 one of law.

5 one of fact. (2)

The following facts are relevant for questions 33-34 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):
An owner of a cow, which disappeared five years previously, recognised the cow at an
auction, but did not protest when it was sold. The owner seeks to reclaim his cow from
the purchaser, who invokes estoppel against the owner.
Question 33
Which statement best reflects the legal position?

1 Estoppel will not succeed because the owner made no misrepresentation.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

15 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

2 Estoppel will succeed because the owner made a misrepresentation by omission.

3 Estoppel will not succeed because the owner did not represent that he had waived his
right to institute the rei vindicatio in the circumstances.

4 Estoppel will succeed because the owner’s rei vindicatio has prescribed.

5 Estoppel does not apply to the facts. (2)

Question 34

Which case relates to the answer to question 33?

1 Electrolux (Pty) Ltd v Khota and Another 1961 (4) SA 244 (W).

2 Van Ryn Wine & Spirit Co v Chandos Bar 1928 TPD 417.

3 Johaadien v Stanley Porter (Paarl) (Pty) Ltd 1970 (1) SA 394 (A).

4 Maling v Hargreaves 25 SC 123.

5 Union Government v National Bank of SA Ltd 1921 AD 121. (2)

The following facts are relevant for questions 35-36 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):

A rents out a flat to B for R7 000,00 per month. The written contract provides that if B is
behind in his rent payments, A can have him summarily evicted. The contract also has a
clause providing that no amendments to the contract, including the eviction clause, will
be valid and enforceable unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties. B has
fallen on hard times and he only manages to pay A R1 000,00 per month, which A
accepts. After three months A issues summons against B for R18 000,00 rent in arrear
and applies for an order ejecting B from the flat. B raises estoppel.

Question 35

Choose the most correct option:

1 Estoppel cannot be applied where the obligations of the parties are contained in a written
agreement.

2 A may be estopped from strictly enforcing the contract in the circumstances.

3 Waiver of a contractual right and estoppel are one and the same.

4 Estoppel will fail because B will not be able to prove fault on the part of A.

5 A cannot be estopped from strictly enforcing the contract in the circumstances. (2)

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

16 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

Question 36

Which element of estoppel does question 35 relate to?

1 Misrepresentation.

2 Fault.

3 Prejudice.

4 Causation.

5 Permissible in law. (2)

Question 37

Choose the correct statement:

1 In Johaadien v Stanley Porter (Paarl) (Pty) Ltd 1970 (1) SA 394 (A) a plea of estoppel
succeeded.

2 In Fawden v Lelyfeld 1937 TPD a plea of estoppel did not succeed.

3 In Morum Bros v Nepgen 1916 CPD a plea of estoppel succeeded.

4 In Adams v Mocke 23 SC 722 a plea of estoppel succeeded.

5 In Grosvenor Motors (Potchefstroom) Ltd v Douglas 1956 (3) SA 420 (A) a plea of
estoppel did not succeed. (2)

The following facts are relevant for questions 38-41 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):

A takes his car to B, who is an agent selling new and second-hand cars, to have his car
valued and to see if anyone is interested in purchasing it. A is cautious and specifically
instructs B not to attempt to sell the vehicle and to refer any offers to him (A) for
consideration. A also keeps all documentation regarding his legal title to the car. B sells
the vehicle to C for cash. Thereafter B is sequestrated.

Question 38

Which action will A use to claim his car from C?

1 The condictio causa data causa non secuta.

2 A delictual action.

3 A contractual action.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

17 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

4 The actio ad exhibendum.

5 the rei vindicatio. (2)

Question 39

If C raises estoppel against A’s action, which element(s) of estoppel could be difficult to prove in
the circumstances? Choose the best option.

(a) Misrepresentation.

(b) Prejudice.

(c) Fault.

(d) Causation.

(e) Legally permissible.

1 (b).

2 (b), (c) and (d).

3 (a).

4 (a) and (c).

5 (e). (2)

Question 40

Which element of estoppel have the courts at times been prepared to disregard in such
instances?

1 Misrepresentation.

2 Prejudice.

3 Fault.

4 Causation.

5 Legally permissible. (2)

Question 41

Which case applies to the answer to question 40?

1 Akojee v Sibanyoni 1976 (3) SA 440 (W).

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

18 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

2 Union Government v National Bank of SA Ltd 1921 AD 121.

3 Rubin v Botha 1911 AD 568.

4 Baumann v Thomas 1920 AD 428.

5 Van Ryn Wine & Spirit Co v Chandos Bar 1928 TPD 417. (2)

Question 42

In which one of the following fields does estoppel not add to the common law position?

1 The rei vindicatio.

2 Representation in terms of mandate.

3 Partnership.

4 The conclusion of a contract.

5 Waiver of rights. (2)

The following facts are relevant for questions 43-44 (preferably read all these questions
before attempting to answer):

The city council of Cape Town has a statutory duty to collect property rates and
taxes at certain rates. During the past two years the city council has only collected
half of the correct amount of taxes from XYZ (Pty) Ltd due to a clerical error. The
city council has now discovered the mistake and claims immediate payment of an
amount of R500 000,00 from XYZ. XYZ has raised a defence of estoppel against the
claim. They maintain that they have paid more dividends to their shareholders in the
past two years than they would have done if the city council had claimed the correct
amount in rates and taxes.

Question 43

Indicate which statement most correctly reflects the position in regard to XYZ's reliance on
estoppel:

1 XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because XYZ did not act to its
detriment.

2 XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because estoppel is not allowed by
law in instances where the city council must carry out a statutory duty.

3 XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because the city council did not
make a misrepresentation.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

19 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

4 XYZ will probably be successful with its reliance on estoppel.

5 XYZ will not be successful with its reliance on estoppel because the city council did not act
negligently. (2)
Question 44

In which instance has an exception to the rule applicable to question 43 seemingly been
recognised by courts in the past?

1 An invalid mandate.

2 Fictitious hire purchase agreements.

3 Ostensible authority.

4 Waiver.

5 Tender agreements. (2)

Question 45

Indicate which statement most correctly reflects the position in regard to a successful plea of
estoppel against the rei vindicatio:

1 Ownership will be transferred by estoppel.

2 In Oriental Products (Pty) Ltd v Pegma 178 Investments Trading CC and Others 2011 (2)
SA 508 (SCA) Harms DP indicated that ownership can never be transferred by estoppel.

3 The owner is merely prevented from claiming his property.

4 In Oriental Products (Pty) Ltd v Pegma 178 Investments Trading CC and Others 2011 (2)
SA 508 (SCA) Harms DP indicated obiter that ownership possibly could be transferred by
estoppel.

5 3 and 4. (2)

The following facts are relevant to questions 46-48 (preferably read all these questions before
attempting to answer):

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

20 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

A postal agent and part-time government employee, P, permitted S, whom he had known
for many years and whom he had no reason to distrust, to work in his office, S having
told him that he wanted a quiet place in which to work. While he was in P's office, S used
the post office's official date stamp, which P had neglected to keep under lock and key,
to stamp a number of unused blank postal order forms which had been stolen from a
post office in another town about three years before. Having given the order forms the
appearance of validity by stamping them, S disposed of them to various persons. Some
of these persons deposited the orders they had acquired with a bank. The bank
presented the orders to the post office and was paid their face value. The government, on
discovering that the orders were not genuine, sought to recover the amount the post
office had paid to the bank. In raising its defence the bank alleged that P had been
negligent in not keeping the date stamp under lock and key and in allowing S access to
the room in which the stamp was kept.
Question 46

Which case does this set of facts relate to?

1 Van Ryn Wine and Spirit Co v Chandos Bar 1928 TPD 417.

2 Oriental Products (Pty) Ltd v Pegma 178 Investments Trading CC and Others 2011 (2) SA
508 (SCA).

3 Rubin v Botha 1911 AD 568.

4 Union Government v National Bank of SA Ltd 1921 AD 121.

5 Baumann v Thomas 1920 AD 428. (2)

Question 47

Which action did the government rely on in the circumstances?

1 The condictio indebiti.

2 The condictio sine causa specialis.

3 The condictio causa data causa non secuta.

4 The condictio ob turpem vel iniustam causam.

5 The actio negotiorum gestorum utilis. (2)

Question 48

Why did the defence of the bank not succeed in the circumstances? Choose the most correct
option.

(1) P acted intentionally.

(2) There was no representation in the circumstances.

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)

 lOMoARcPSD|4162958

21 of 21 PVL3704
May/June 2020

(3) P’s negligence was not the cause of the bank’s loss.

(4) The bank itself was negligent in the circumstances.

(5) The defence gave rise to a result impermissible in law. (2)

Question 49

Indicate which statement correctly reflects the current legal position with regard to the causality
requirement in regard to estoppel.

1 In terms of the "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, the misrepresentation by
the person denying estoppel must have been the material cause of the detrimental
conduct of the person relying on estoppel.

2 In terms of the "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, the misrepresentation by
the person denying estoppel must have been the only cause of the detrimental conduct of
the person relying on estoppel.

3 The "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, includes only factual causality and
not legal causality.

4 The "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, includes only legal causality and not
factual causality.

5 The "proximate cause" test as applied by the courts, includes both factual causality and
legal causality. (2)
Question 50

Which statement is the most correct?

1. The protection of good faith is the basis of estoppel.

2. The basis of estoppel is to be found in a delictual action for misrepresentation.

3. The basis of estoppel is the exceptio doli.

4. Estoppel can be accepted as a unique remedy (sui generis).

5. The basis of estoppel is the maxim nemo contra suum factum venire debet. (2)

TOTAL [100]

TOTAL FOR PAPER: [100]

©
UNISA 2020

Downloaded by Kreesan Govender (kree.govender@gmail.com)