Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Rachoshi and Others (A217/2024; 25318/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 160 (14 February 2025)

Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Rachoshi and Others (A217/2024; 25318/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 160 (14 February 2025)

The Full Court found that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to investigate and determine the complaint relating to non-payment of contributions for the period 2009 to 2011, as these acts occurred more than three years before the complaint was lodged in 2016. The statutory time bar in section 30I(1) applied, and the court a quo erred in accepting that prescription was delayed until Mr Rachoshi became aware of the debt in 2015, as knowledge of the salient facts existed in 2009. The settlement agreement concluded between Brinant and the Fund, with the Adjudicator's involvement, was binding on Mr Rachoshi, who accepted payments under its terms. The Adjudicator's determination disregarded...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 160
Parties
Appellant: Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: M L Rachoshi; Respondent: The Private Security Sector Provident Fund; Respondent: The Pension Funds Adjudicator
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Case Number
A217/2024; 25318/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Court Appeal From the High Court, Following Leave Granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order and judgment of the court a quo are set aside and replaced with an order setting aside the Pension Funds Adjudicator's determination. Costs awarded to the appellant, including costs of two counsel on Scale C.
Judges
Labuschagne, Yende, Mazibuko
Legal Topics
Pension Funds Act, Statutory Time Bar, Settlement Agreement, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Procedural Fairness
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Pension Funds Act Statutory Time Bar Settlement Agreement Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Procedural Fairness

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

M L Rachoshi

Respondent

The Private Security Sector Provident Fund

Respondent

The Pension Funds Adjudicator

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Court Appeal From the High Court, Following Leave Granted by the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pension Funds Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the complaint relating to acts more than three years prior to the complaint.
  2. 2 Whether the settlement agreement between Brinant and the Fund precluded further investigation or determination by the Adjudicator.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements under section 30A of the Pension Funds Act were complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court found that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction to investigate and determine the complaint relating to non-payment of contributions for the period 2009 to 2011, as these acts occurred more than three years before the complaint was lodged in 2016. The statutory time bar in section 30I(1) applied, and the court a quo erred in accepting that prescription was delayed until Mr Rachoshi became aware of the debt in 2015, as knowledge of the salient facts existed in 2009. The settlement agreement concluded between Brinant and the Fund, with the Adjudicator's involvement, was binding on Mr Rachoshi, who accepted payments under its terms. The Adjudicator's determination disregarded...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order and judgment of the court a quo are set aside and replaced with an order setting aside the Pension Funds Adjudicator's determination. Costs awarded to the appellant, including costs of two counsel on Scale C.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel on Scale C.
  • The order and judgment of the court a quo are set aside.