Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed) (155/87) [1988] ZASCA 96 (19 September 1988)

Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed) (155/87) [1988] ZASCA 96 (19 September 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the deed of cession entered into between Sasfin and Dr Beukes was invalid on the grounds of public policy, as previously determined in Sasfin (Proprietary) Limited v Beukes. Since the deeds of cession with Drs du Plessis and Klopper were in identical terms, they too were invalid and unenforceable. Sasfin conceded that if the deeds were found invalid, the appeal could not succeed. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal without considering any other issues.

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 96
Parties
Appellant: Sasfin (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 1988
Case Number
155/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Van Heerden, Smalberger, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Public Policy, Invalid Contract, Cession, Enforceability of Contracts
Commercial and Corporate Public Policy Invalid Contract Cession Enforceability of Contracts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sasfin (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deeds of cession entered into between Sasfin and the doctors are enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the deeds of cession are invalid on the grounds of public policy.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the deed of cession entered into between Sasfin and Dr Beukes was invalid on the grounds of public policy, as previously determined in Sasfin (Proprietary) Limited v Beukes. Since the deeds of cession with Drs du Plessis and Klopper were in identical terms, they too were invalid and unenforceable. Sasfin conceded that if the deeds were found invalid, the appeal could not succeed. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal without considering any other issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Sasfin is to pay such costs as the respondent may have incurred.