Mmileng v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (7397/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1067 (15 December 2016)

Mmileng v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (7397/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1067 (15 December 2016)

The court found that the applicant had, on a balance of probabilities, proven she was a contributing member of the previous pension fund from 13 January 1978, based on her sworn evidence, salary advices, and a supporting letter from her former employer. The respondent's demand for further documentary proof was unreasonable given the circumstances and the dissolution of the former employer. The court held that the applicant had provided satisfactory proof as required by the Rules. The respondent's refusal to pay was not administrative action under PAJA but a failure to comply with a contractual obligation. The applicant was entitled to enforce her contractual right to payment directly,...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1067
Parties
Applicant: Masego Eveline Mmileng; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: South African National Defence Force; Respondent: Minister of Defence and Military Veterans
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2016
Case Number
7397/16
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
A De Kok
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Entitlement, Satisfactory Proof of Membership, Contractual Enforcement, Administrative Action Definition
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Pension Fund Entitlement Satisfactory Proof of Membership Contractual Enforcement Administrative Action Definition

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Masego Eveline Mmileng

Applicant

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

South African National Defence Force

Respondent

Minister of Defence and Military Veterans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has proven she was a contributing member of the previous pension fund from 13 January 1978 to 31 August 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has provided satisfactory proof of her pensionable service for the disputed period.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's refusal to pay constitutes administrative action under PAJA or is a contractual matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had, on a balance of probabilities, proven she was a contributing member of the previous pension fund from 13 January 1978, based on her sworn evidence, salary advices, and a supporting letter from her former employer. The respondent's demand for further documentary proof was unreasonable given the circumstances and the dissolution of the former employer. The court held that the applicant had provided satisfactory proof as required by the Rules. The respondent's refusal to pay was not administrative action under PAJA but a failure to comply with a contractual obligation. The applicant was entitled to enforce her contractual right to payment directly,...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to pay to the applicant the balance of her pension benefit, calculated in terms of the Rules of the first respondent, and calculated on the basis that the applicant's pensionable service includes the period of 13 January 1978 to 31 August 1989.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs of this application.