Hendricks v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Others, In re: Adendolf and Others v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Others (EC04/14 , EC08/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 195 (9 December 2015)

Hendricks v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Others, In re: Adendolf and Others v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Others (EC04/14 , EC08/14) [2015] ZAWCHC 195 (9 December 2015)

The Equality Court, established under section 16 of the Equality Act, is a statutory court with jurisdiction limited to causes of action arising after the commencement of the Act. The Equality Act, as well as the equality clauses in the Interim and Final Constitutions, were not intended to be retrospective except for limited instances such as land restitution. The complainants' claims, which arose in or about 1993, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Equality Court. The statutory language of the Equality Act and the relevant constitutional provisions are forward-looking and do not provide for the adjudication of past conduct. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the...

Citation
[2015] ZAWCHC 195
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Hendricks; Applicant: SEM Adendolf & 95 Others; Respondent: Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund; Respondent: Transport Pension Fund; Respondent: Transnet Limited; Respondent: Minister of Public Enterprises; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: President of the Republic of SA; Respondent: Metropolitan Retirement Administrators (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Transnet Sub-Fund; Respondent: South African Airways Sub-Fund; Respondent: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Sub-Fund
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2015
Case Number
EC04/14 , EC08/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Jurisdictional Challenge and Preliminary Points of Law
Outcome
Jurisdiction declined for claims arising before the commencement of the Equality Act and the Constitutions, except for two complainants whose claims arose after 16 June 2003.
Judges
Yekiso
Legal Topics
Equality Court Jurisdiction, Retrospective Application of Statutes, Unfair Discrimination, Prescription of Claims
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Equality Court Jurisdiction Retrospective Application of Statutes Unfair Discrimination Prescription of Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Hendricks

Applicant

SEM Adendolf & 95 Others

Applicant

Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund

Respondent

Transport Pension Fund

Respondent

Transnet Limited

Respondent

Minister of Public Enterprises

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

President of the Republic of SA

Respondent

Metropolitan Retirement Administrators (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Transnet Sub-Fund

Respondent

South African Airways Sub-Fund

Respondent

Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa Sub-Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Jurisdictional Challenge and Preliminary Points of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Equality Court have jurisdiction over claims arising before the commencement of the Interim and Final Constitutions and the Equality Act?
  2. 2 Is the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 4 of 2000, retrospective in its application?
  3. 3 Have the complainants' claims become prescribed?

Ratio Decidendi

The Equality Court, established under section 16 of the Equality Act, is a statutory court with jurisdiction limited to causes of action arising after the commencement of the Act. The Equality Act, as well as the equality clauses in the Interim and Final Constitutions, were not intended to be retrospective except for limited instances such as land restitution. The complainants' claims, which arose in or about 1993, fall outside the jurisdiction of the Equality Court. The statutory language of the Equality Act and the relevant constitutional provisions are forward-looking and do not provide for the adjudication of past conduct. The court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain the...

Court Disposition

Jurisdiction declined for claims arising before the commencement of the Equality Act and the Constitutions, except for two complainants whose claims arose after 16 June 2003.

Orders

  • Except for Dirk Ambross and Abram Apies, whose claims arose after 16 June 2003, this court does not have jurisdiction in respect of all claims that arose on or about 1993 and between 27 April 1994 and 4 February 1997.
  • There is no order as to costs.