South African Police Service Medical Scheme ( (2011 (4) SA 456 (SCA)) [2011] ZASCA 91; 542/10 (31 May 2011)

South African Police Service Medical Scheme ( (2011 (4) SA 456 (SCA)) [2011] ZASCA 91; 542/10 (31 May 2011)

The appeal was dismissed because the amendments to the scheme rules rendered the dispute academic. The court found that there were no live issues between the parties and that the judgment sought would have no practical effect. The discretion under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act was exercised to dismiss the appeal. The court criticized the appellants for failing to inform it of the rule amendments in a timely manner and held that factual matters relevant to the exercise of discretion must be properly placed before the court by affidavit, not informal submissions. Costs were awarded against the appellants.

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 91
Parties
Appellant: South African Police Service Medical Scheme ('Polmed'); Appellant: Qualsa Healthcare (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Andile Robert Lamana; Respondent: Nzwane Victor Mzili; Respondent: Tandie Coleman Maloni
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2011
Case Number
542/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, payable jointly and severally by the appellants.
Judges
Cloete, Ponnan, Cachalia, Malan, Meer
Legal Topics
Medical Schemes Act, Interpretation of Scheme Rules, Practical Effect of Appeal, Costs Award, Leave to Appeal, Section 21a Supreme Court Act
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Medical Schemes Act Interpretation of Scheme Rules Practical Effect of Appeal Costs Award Leave to Appeal Section 21a Supreme Court Act

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Police Service Medical Scheme ('Polmed')

Appellant

Qualsa Healthcare (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Andile Robert Lamana

Respondent

Nzwane Victor Mzili

Respondent

Tandie Coleman Maloni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were entitled to refuse payment into the nominated trust account under the scheme rules.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal had any practical effect after the amendment of the scheme rules.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to dismiss the appeal under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the amendments to the scheme rules rendered the dispute academic. The court found that there were no live issues between the parties and that the judgment sought would have no practical effect. The discretion under section 21A of the Supreme Court Act was exercised to dismiss the appeal. The court criticized the appellants for failing to inform it of the rule amendments in a timely manner and held that factual matters relevant to the exercise of discretion must be properly placed before the court by affidavit, not informal submissions. Costs were awarded against the appellants.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel, payable jointly and severally by the appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, which are to be paid by the appellants jointly and severally.