Krygkor Pensioenfonds v Smith (388/92) [1993] ZASCA 47; 1993 (3) SA 459 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 296 (A) (31 March 1993)

Krygkor Pensioenfonds v Smith (388/92) [1993] ZASCA 47; 1993 (3) SA 459 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 296 (A) (31 March 1993)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's application against the pension fund was ancillary to her claim against her former husband, and once the dispute between them was settled, there was no longer any basis for relief against the fund. The court found that the respondent could have obtained the necessary information through ordinary procedural means, such as discovery or subpoena, without resorting to extraordinary relief. The inherent jurisdiction of the court to order disclosure from third parties should be exercised only in exceptional cases where justice demands deviation from established procedures, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the substantive orders...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 47
Parties
Appellant: Krygkor Pensioenfonds; Respondent: Flippina Catharina Smith
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 1993
Case Number
388/92
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs; the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order that the rule nisi is discharged with costs.
Judges
Hoexter, E M Grosskopf, Eksteen, Nienaber, Krieger
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Information, Egregious Division of Pension Interest, Inherent Jurisdiction, Urgent Application, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Family and Children Disclosure of Information Egregious Division of Pension Interest Inherent Jurisdiction Urgent Application Costs Order

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krygkor Pensioenfonds

Appellant

Flippina Catharina Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court a quo was correct in granting an order compelling the pension fund to disclose information to the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to join the pension fund as a party to the proceedings for the purpose of obtaining information.
  3. 3 Whether the court's inherent jurisdiction justified deviation from ordinary procedural rules in this case.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's application against the pension fund was ancillary to her claim against her former husband, and once the dispute between them was settled, there was no longer any basis for relief against the fund. The court found that the respondent could have obtained the necessary information through ordinary procedural means, such as discovery or subpoena, without resorting to extraordinary relief. The inherent jurisdiction of the court to order disclosure from third parties should be exercised only in exceptional cases where justice demands deviation from established procedures, which was not the case here. Accordingly, the substantive orders...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs; the order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order that the rule nisi is discharged with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside.