Mmileng v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (7397/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 38 (8 February 2017)

Mmileng v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (7397/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 38 (8 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that she was a contributing member of the previous pension fund from 13 January 1978. The first respondent's denial was based solely on the absence of records, which was insufficient to create a bona fide dispute of fact. The applicant's evidence was credible and supported by available documentation. The court further held that the applicant provided satisfactory proof to the Board for the purposes of Rule 6, and that it would be unreasonable for the Board to demand decades-old salary advices that are impossible to produce. No compelling reason was found to grant leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 38
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
8 February 2017
Case Number
7397/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 15 December 2016.
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
De Kok
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Dispute of Fact, Satisfactory Proof, Pension Benefits
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Dispute of Fact Satisfactory Proof Pension Benefits

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 2 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

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Order Handed Down on 15 December 2016.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant proved she was a contributing member of the previous pension fund for the period 13 January 1978 to 31 August 1989.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided satisfactory proof of her membership to the first respondent's Board for the purposes of Rule 6.
  3. 3 Whether there is a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the Superior Courts Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had proven, on a balance of probabilities, that she was a contributing member of the previous pension fund from 13 January 1978. The first respondent's denial was based solely on the absence of records, which was insufficient to create a bona fide dispute of fact. The applicant's evidence was credible and supported by available documentation. The court further held that the applicant provided satisfactory proof to the Board for the purposes of Rule 6, and that it would be unreasonable for the Board to demand decades-old salary advices that are impossible to produce. No compelling reason was found to grant leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a)(ii) of the...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The first respondent's application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.