Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed) (155/87) [1988] ZASCA 97 (19 September 1988)

Sasfin (Pty) Ltd v Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed) (155/87) [1988] ZASCA 97 (19 September 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent did not rely on the ground that the doctors lacked enforceable claims against it in its application, and the court a quo erred in deciding on that basis. The assignment agreements were not invalid as a whole, and the respondent's arguments regarding the necessity of its consent for payment were not properly raised in the pleadings. The appeal was upheld, and the application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 97
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 Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Rabie, Jansen, Van Heerden, Smalberger, Nestadt
Legal Topics
Assignment of Claims, Contra Bonos Mores, Standing to Sue
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Assignment of Claims Contra Bonos Mores Standing to Sue

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sasfin (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Suid-Afrikaanse Vervoerdienste (Transmed)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment agreements between the doctors and the appellant were invalid as contra bonos mores.
  2. 2 Whether the doctors had enforceable claims against the respondent for services rendered to its members.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was entitled to rely on grounds not pleaded in its application.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent did not rely on the ground that the doctors lacked enforceable claims against it in its application, and the court a quo erred in deciding on that basis. The assignment agreements were not invalid as a whole, and the respondent's arguments regarding the necessity of its consent for payment were not properly raised in the pleadings. The appeal was upheld, and the application was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.