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)
,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.
,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.
, 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
