Bohloko v Liberty Group Limited (3357/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 213 (15 December 2016)

Bohloko v Liberty Group Limited (3357/2016) [2016] ZAFSHC 213 (15 December 2016)

The court held that the applicant's entitlement to her pension interest is governed by the Rules of the fund and the Pension Funds Act. The applicant had not reached the normal retirement age and had already made a withdrawal from her benefit, precluding further withdrawals under Rule 6.3.3. The Rules did not provide for the granting of loans to members, and the Act only allows loans if the Rules permit. The court found no basis to order Liberty to release further funds or grant a loan, as this would contravene the explicit terms of the agreement and statutory provisions. The applicant's constitutional right to property was not infringed, as the refusal was in accordance with the Rules...

Citation
[2016] ZAFSHC 213
Parties
Applicant: Gertrude Matsitso Bohloko; Respondent: Liberty Group Limited
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
3357/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
C Reinders
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Rules, Withdrawal Benefits, Contractual Entitlement, Loan by Pension Fund
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Pension Fund Rules Withdrawal Benefits Contractual Entitlement Loan by Pension Fund

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gertrude Matsitso Bohloko

Applicant

Liberty Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to withdraw further funds from her pension benefit before reaching the normal retirement age.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is obliged to grant a loan to the applicant from the pension fund.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's constitutional right to property is infringed by the refusal to release pension benefits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant's entitlement to her pension interest is governed by the Rules of the fund and the Pension Funds Act. The applicant had not reached the normal retirement age and had already made a withdrawal from her benefit, precluding further withdrawals under Rule 6.3.3. The Rules did not provide for the granting of loans to members, and the Act only allows loans if the Rules permit. The court found no basis to order Liberty to release further funds or grant a loan, as this would contravene the explicit terms of the agreement and statutory provisions. The applicant's constitutional right to property was not infringed, as the refusal was in accordance with the Rules...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs against the applicant.