Nortje en ’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)

Nortje en ’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A)

Issue: Whether South African law recognizes a general enrichment action.

Facts:

Nortje and another person (the appellants) paid a sum of money to Pool NO, the respondent, under the mistaken belief that they were legally obliged to do so. The appellants later discovered that they were not legally obliged to pay the money and demanded that Pool NO return the money. Pool NO refused to return the money, arguing that he had changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the money.

The appellants then sued Pool NO for the return of the money. The appellants argued that they were entitled to recover the money under a general enrichment action. Pool NO argued that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action.

Held:

The majority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action. The majority reasoned that there are a number of specific enrichment actions in South African law, such as the condictio indebiti (the action to recover money paid under a mistake of fact) and the condictio sine causa (the action to recover money paid without cause), and that these specific enrichment actions are sufficient to protect the interests of persons who have been enriched at the expense of another person.

However, the majority also held that the courts may develop new enrichment actions in the future if it is necessary to do so in order to achieve justice.

The minority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does recognize a general enrichment action. The minority reasoned that there is a principle of unjust enrichment in South African law and that this principle gives rise to a general enrichment action.

Key Facts:

• The appellants paid money to the respondent under the mistaken belief that they were legally obliged to do so.
• The appellants later discovered that they were not legally obliged to pay the money and demanded that the respondent return the money.
• The respondent refused to return the money, arguing that he had changed his position in reliance on the receipt of the money.
• The appellants sued the respondent for the return of the money, arguing that they were entitled to recover the money under a general enrichment action.
• The respondent argued that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action.

Reasons:

• The majority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does not recognize a general enrichment action. The majority reasoned that there are a number of specific enrichment actions in South African law, such as the condictio indebiti and the condictio sine causa, and that these specific enrichment actions are sufficient to protect the interests of persons who have been enriched at the expense of another person.
• However, the majority also held that the courts may develop new enrichment actions in the future if it is necessary to do so in order to achieve justice.
• The minority of the Appellate Court held that South African law does recognize a general enrichment action. The minority reasoned that there is a principle of unjust enrichment in South African law and that this principle gives rise to a general enrichment action.

Conclusion:

The majority decision in Nortje en ’n Ander v Pool NO 1966 (3) SA 96 (A) is still the law in South Africa today. However, the minority decision has been influential and has been cited in a number of subsequent cases. It is possible that the courts may recognize a general enrichment action in the future, but this has not yet happened.