Thahane v Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund (CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 10 of 15) [2016] LSHC 9 (26 July 2016)

Thahane v Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund (CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 10 of 15) [2016] LSHC 9 (26 July 2016)

The amendment to section 6(2) does not violate sections 17, 18, or 19 of the Constitution. The differentiation between retirees and resigners is rational, justified by the social security purpose of the pension scheme, and does not amount to prohibited discrimination. The retrospective effect of the amendment is constitutionally permissible and does not unlawfully deprive the applicants of property rights.

Citation
[2016] LSHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Timothy Thahane; Applicant: Sephiri Motanyane; Applicant: Letapata Makhaola; Applicant: Ntsaila Ntsaila; Applicant: Kali Seitlheko; Applicant: Leeto Monahali; Applicant: Liau Ntlele; Applicant: Mosebi Khotseng; Applicant: 'Malijane Maqelepo; Applicant: 'Mamolili Marupelo; Applicant: Thabang Nchai; Applicant: 'Maphoka Motoboli; Respondent: Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund; Respondent: Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs; Respondent: Attorney General
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Lesotho
Judgment Date
26 July 2016
Case Number
CONSTITUTIONAL CASE 10 of 15
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pension Rights, Retrospective Legislation, Equality Before the Law, Freedom From Discrimination, Property Rights
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Labour Law Social Security Law Pension Rights Retrospective Legislation Equality Before the Law Freedom From Discrimination Property Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Thahane

Applicant

Sephiri Motanyane

Applicant

Letapata Makhaola

Applicant

Ntsaila Ntsaila

Applicant

Kali Seitlheko

Applicant

Leeto Monahali

Applicant

Liau Ntlele

Applicant

Mosebi Khotseng

Applicant

'Malijane Maqelepo

Applicant

'Mamolili Marupelo

Applicant

Thabang Nchai

Applicant

'Maphoka Motoboli

Applicant

Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund

Respondent

Minister of Law and Constitutional Affairs

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 6(2) of the Specified Offices Defined Contribution Pension Fund (Amendment) Act 3 of 2014 is unconstitutional for violating sections 17, 18, and 19 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the retrospective operation of the Amendment Act unlawfully deprives applicants of property rights
  3. 3 Whether differentiation between retirees and resigners constitutes prohibited discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment to section 6(2) does not violate sections 17, 18, or 19 of the Constitution. The differentiation between retirees and resigners is rational, justified by the social security purpose of the pension scheme, and does not amount to prohibited discrimination. The retrospective effect of the amendment is constitutionally permissible and does not unlawfully deprive the applicants of property rights.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There shall be no order as to costs.