Investec Employee Benefits Ltd v Marais and Others (580/2011) [2012] ZASCA 99; [2012] 3 All SA 622 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

Investec Employee Benefits Ltd v Marais and Others (580/2011) [2012] ZASCA 99; [2012] 3 All SA 622 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Pension Funds Adjudicator does not have the power to extend prescription periods under the Prescription Act, and that the Act applies to claims brought before the Adjudicator. The first respondent's claim had prescribed before his complaint was lodged with the Adjudicator, as prescription began running when he had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt, which was at least by June 2001. The Adjudicator's powers to condone late complaints or extend time limits are limited to those prescribed by the Pension Funds Act and do not override the Prescription Act. Consequently, the Adjudicator's determination was set...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 99
Parties
Appellant: Investec Employee Benefits Limited; Respondent: Stephanus Johannes Marais; Respondent: Vantage Pension Administrators (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Vuyani Ngalwana N.O.
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2012
Case Number
580/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; complaint dismissed as prescribed.
Judges
Farlam, Cloete, Malan, Wallis, McLaren
Legal Topics
Prescription Act, Pension Funds Act, Condonation of Late Filing, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Prescription Act Pension Funds Act Condonation of Late Filing Jurisdiction of Adjudicator

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investec Employee Benefits Limited

Appellant

Stephanus Johannes Marais

Respondent

Vantage Pension Administrators (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Vuyani Ngalwana N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pension Funds Adjudicator is empowered to extend time limits laid down in the Prescription Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Prescription Act applies to claims forming the subject matter of complaints to the Adjudicator.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's claim had prescribed before his complaint was lodged with the Adjudicator.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Pension Funds Adjudicator does not have the power to extend prescription periods under the Prescription Act, and that the Act applies to claims brought before the Adjudicator. The first respondent's claim had prescribed before his complaint was lodged with the Adjudicator, as prescription began running when he had knowledge of the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the debt, which was at least by June 2001. The Adjudicator's powers to condone late complaints or extend time limits are limited to those prescribed by the Pension Funds Act and do not override the Prescription Act. Consequently, the Adjudicator's determination was set...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; complaint dismissed as prescribed.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order condoning the appellant's late application.