Nortje v Pool 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)

OVERVIEW

This case dealt with the nature and extent of unjustified enrichment and the general enrichment action.

It also dealt with a landowner's liability for useful improvements to his/her property

FACTS

In 1958 Nortje and others(the plaintiffs) concluded a written agreement with Albertus Pool (Pool) by which Pool granted them exclusive rights to prospect for kaolin(a type of clay) on two farms owned by Pool. Part of the agreement was that they could also exploit the kaolin if any was found in terms of the conditions laid out in the agreement.

They spent considerable amounts of money and subsequently discovered exploitable amounts of kaolin. It was later discovered that their agreement with Pool was invalid because it did not comply with section 3 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. 

Pool died in 1962 and the executor of his estate refused to consent to the attestation of the contract. The plaintiffs then brought an action against Pool's estate in the Cape Provincial Division, claiming that Pool and his estate had unjustifiably been enriched by the expense of R 4 557 incurred by them on the discovery of kaolin.

In the Cape Provincial Division the plaintiffs claimed that;

-The action was allowed by way of an extension of the action of the bona fide possessor for compensation for his impensae utiles(useful, beneficial, expenditures made to promote the improvement of a thing);or

-The action was allowed by way of an extension of the action of the bona fide occupier;or

-The action was allowed by way of an application of a general enrichment action.

The Cape Provincial Division allowed an exception brought by the defendant and subsequently, in this case the appeal was dismissed by the Appelate Division.

The majority of the Appelate Division held that (1) the plaintiffs' claim did not fall within the scope of the action of the bona fide possessor for compensation for his impensae untiles, (2) the circumstances of the case did not justify an extension of the action of bona fide occupier for improvements and that; (3) no general enrichment action exists in South African law.

PRECEDENT

The court rejected the existence of a general enrichment action. It explained that there had merely been an ad hoc extension of the specific existing actions found in Roman and Roman-Dutch law as applied in South Africa today. The court also stated that a general enrichment action may yet be recognised but must be developed gradually over time.

As of the date of this post (07/04/2018) no such general enrichment action had yet been recognised. Feel free to comment and update me if the law on this has changed.