Member-only story

Unjust Enrichment in South African Law: The Ultimate Guide

Kazuo Ishiguro

·5.7k Followers· Follow

Published in Unjust Enrichment In South African Law: Rethinking Enrichment By Transfer (Hart Studies In Private Law 7)

6 min read · 2 weeks before

218 View Claps

37 Respond

Save

Listen

Unjust enrichment is a legal concept that refers to the unjust or improper gain or benefit that one person obtains at the expense of another. In South African law, unjust enrichment is governed by the law of unjustified enrichment, which is based on the principle that no one should be allowed to profit from their wrongng.

Unjust Enrichment in South African Law: Rethinking Enrichment by Transfer (Hart Studies in Private Law 7)

Unjust Enrichment in South African Law: Rethinking Enrichment by Transfer (Hart Studies in Private Law Book 7)

by Helen Scott

4.8 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	1237 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	251 pages

The law of unjustified enrichment has its roots in Roman law, where it was known as the condictio indebiti. The condictio indebiti was a legal action that allowed a person who had paid money or property to another without a legal obligation to do so to recover the money or property. The condictio indebiti was based on the principle that no one should be allowed to enrich themselves at the expense of another.

The law of unjustified enrichment was introduced into South African law through the Roman-Dutch common law. The Roman-Dutch common law is a system of law that was developed in the Netherlands during the 17th and 18th centuries. The Roman-Dutch common law was brought to South Africa by the Dutch settlers who arrived in the Cape of Good Hope in 1652.

The law of unjustified enrichment in South African law has been developed by the courts over the years. The courts have held that the law of unjustified enrichment is based on the principle that no one should be allowed to profit from their wrongng. The courts have also held that the law of unjustified enrichment is a flexible doctrine that can be applied to a wide range of situations.

The law of unjustified enrichment in South African law is currently governed by the Enrichment Act, 1956. The Enrichment Act codifies the common law principles of unjustified enrichment. The Enrichment Act provides that a person who has been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is liable to make restitution to the other person.

The law of unjustified enrichment in South African law is a complex and evolving area of law. The courts continue to develop the law of unjustified enrichment on a case-by-case basis. As a result, it is important to seek legal advice if you are involved in a dispute that involves unjust enrichment.

Elements of Unjust Enrichment

The law of unjustified enrichment in South African law is based on the following elements:

Enrichment: The defendant must have been enriched. Enrichment can be in the form of money, property, or other benefits.
Unjustness: The enrichment must be unjust. Enrichment is unjust if it is obtained at the expense of another person.
Causation: The defendant's enrichment must have been caused by the plaintiff's loss.

The courts have held that the elements of unjust enrichment must be proved on a balance of probabilities.

Remedies for Unjust Enrichment

The courts have a wide range of remedies available to them to address unjust enrichment. The most common remedies are:

Restitution: The defendant is Free Downloaded to restore the plaintiff to the position they would have been in if the enrichment had not occurred.
Compensation: The defendant is Free Downloaded to pay the plaintiff damages for the loss they have suffered.
Injunction: The defendant is Free Downloaded to stop the enrichment.

The courts will consider the specific circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate remedy.

Unjust Enrichment in South African Courts

The courts in South Africa have decided a number of cases involving unjust enrichment. Some of the most important cases include:

Minister van Justisie v Safatsa [1988] ZASCA 9; 1988 (4) SA 861 (A): The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Minister of Justice was liable to pay damages to a man who had been wrongfully imprisoned for 12 years.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa v Act 101 Committee [2000] ZASCA 74; 2000 (3) SA 673 (SCA): The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association of South Africa was not liable to pay damages to a group of people who had been harmed by the side effects of a drug.
National Credit Regulator v Opperman [2013] ZASCA 129; 2014 (3) SA 1 (SCA): The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the National Credit Regulator was liable to pay damages to a woman who had been overcharged for a loan.

These cases illustrate the wide range of situations in which the law of unjust enrichment can be applied.

Unjust Enrichment in South African Law: Rethinking Enrichment by Transfer (Hart Studies in Private Law Book 7)

by Helen Scott

4.8 out of 5