Supreme Court Raises Concerns over MACT Rulings, Seeks Clear and Well-Reasoned Findings  ||  Supreme Court Revives over Rs.16 Crore Service Tax Demand Against BPCL and HPCL in CNG Sales Case  ||  Supreme Court Reduces Gang Rape Convict's Sentence to 20 Years, Cites Reform Prospects  ||  Rajasthan High Court: NI and Commercial Court Proceedings Equal, Grants Accused Original Records  ||  Bombay HC: Officials, Not Taxpayers, Must Pay For Losses From Illegal Project Cancellations  ||  Karnataka HC: Major Unmarried Daughter can Claim PG Education Costs under Domestic Violence Act  ||  Punjab & Haryana HC Calls For Wisdom Amid Lawyers' Strike over LADCS  ||  Kerala HC Orders SIT to Conclude Sabarimala Gold Theft Probe After National Metallurgical Lab Report  ||  Delhi HC Lifts Gag Order on the Wire; Prior Restraint in Defamation Not Sustainable  ||  Delhi HC: Parents Fined Rs.2 Lakh over False Birth Date for School Admission    

KeyHealth Medical Scheme vs. Glopin (Pty) - (28 Oct 2022)

Agreement could be terminated by either party in terms of the legislation

Contract

The issue in the appeal was whether the Appellant, KeyHealth Medical Scheme (KeyHealth), was entitled to revoke the agreement it had with the Respondent, Glopin (Pty) Ltd. (Glopin), on the basis that it constituted a mandate revocable at any time by KeyHealth.

KeyHealth contended that the agreement between the parties amounted to a contract of mandate and, as a result, either party was free to revoke it at any time. Therefore, it was entitled to revoke Glopin’s mandate as it did on 31 March 2017. To advance this argument, KeyHealth contended that, the services provided for in the Service Level Agreement (SLA) were provided on KeyHealth’s behalf and not on behalf of the members of the medical scheme per se.

KeyHealth failed to show that the mandate it contended for was the kind of mandatary’s authority in respect of which the irrevocability clause could not apply. KeyHealth seemed to base its argument purely on the use of the word ‘authority’ in the agreement and ignored other clauses, which gave rise to the context of the use of the expression. By KeyHealth’s own admission, and as stated in the agreement, Glopin was not an empowered agent. It did not have authority to conclude juristic acts on KeyHealth’s behalf.

Even assuming that a contract of mandate existed, KeyHealth’s predecessor, Munimed, had bound itself, in terms of clause 4, to the duration of the agreement and how it would have been terminated. In terms of clause 4, the parties agreed that the agreement would continue for the period of Glopin’s accreditation by the Council for Medical Schemes and it could be terminated by either party in terms of the legislation. The agreement could also be automatically terminated if any of the events stipulated therein occurred. None of the events stipulated in clause 4 for triggering the termination of the agreement had taken place. KeyHealth was, therefore, not permitted to revoke the contract at will.

Tags : AGREEMENT   REVOCATION   PERMISSION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved