Kitshoff v Fedsure Staff Pension Fund and Others (597/16) [2017] ZASCA 31 (28 March 2017)

Kitshoff v Fedsure Staff Pension Fund and Others (597/16) [2017] ZASCA 31 (28 March 2017)

The appellant's membership in the Fund was terminated when the Employer ceased participation and contributions as of 1 July 2002. The subsequent approval of the transfer of benefits to WUPF, with retrospective effect, did not revive any entitlement to enhanced benefits under the former Fund's rules. The appellant was not a member of the Fund at the time of retrenchment and thus had no enforceable right to claim enhanced pension benefits. The Fund and Employer acted lawfully in terminating participation and arranging transfer to WUPF. The appellant received all benefits due from WUPF, and there was no legal basis for any further claim against the Fund or Employer.

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 31
Parties
Appellant: Jacobus Johannes Kitshoff; Respondent: Fedsure Staff Pension Fund; Respondent: The Building Industry Bargaining Council (Cape of Good Hope); Respondent: Colin Southey NO; Respondent: Elmarie de la Rey NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2017
Case Number
597/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Shongwe, Swain, Zondi, Mathopo, Gorven
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Transfer, Termination of Membership, Retrospective Approval, Contractual Repudiation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Pension Fund Transfer Termination of Membership Retrospective Approval Contractual Repudiation

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Johannes Kitshoff

Appellant

Fedsure Staff Pension Fund

Respondent

The Building Industry Bargaining Council (Cape of Good Hope)

Respondent

Colin Southey NO

Respondent

Elmarie de la Rey NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Local Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to enhanced pension benefits upon retrenchment after termination of membership in the Fund.
  2. 2 Whether the retrospective approval of the transfer of pension benefits affected any vested rights of the appellant.
  3. 3 Whether the Fund or Employer was liable for any shortfall in pension benefits due to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant's membership in the Fund was terminated when the Employer ceased participation and contributions as of 1 July 2002. The subsequent approval of the transfer of benefits to WUPF, with retrospective effect, did not revive any entitlement to enhanced benefits under the former Fund's rules. The appellant was not a member of the Fund at the time of retrenchment and thus had no enforceable right to claim enhanced pension benefits. The Fund and Employer acted lawfully in terminating participation and arranging transfer to WUPF. The appellant received all benefits due from WUPF, and there was no legal basis for any further claim against the Fund or Employer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.