Motaung v Government Employees Pension Fund (B39013/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1764 (9 October 2023)

Motaung v Government Employees Pension Fund (B39013/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1764 (9 October 2023)

The court found that the respondent had made clear admissions under oath that the applicant was a contributory member of the pension fund from 1 June 1976 to 31 January 2014. The respondent's attempt to qualify or limit these admissions was rejected, as the admissions were not withdrawn or amended by further affidavit. The court further held that the applicant's service during the disputed period was continuous, and therefore, she was entitled to have her pension and gratuity benefits recalculated based on the extended period of service. The respondent was ordered to take all necessary steps to effect payment and obtain tax directives, and to pay the costs of the application.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1764
Parties
Applicant: Mamoki Emily Motaung; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2023
Case Number
B39013/2022
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Le Grange
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Membership, Continuous Service, Gratuity Calculation, Tax Directives, Motion Proceedings
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Pension Fund Membership Continuous Service Gratuity Calculation Tax Directives Motion Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamoki Emily Motaung

Applicant

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in continuous service from 1 June 1976 to 31 January 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was a contributory member of the pension fund during the disputed period.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is obliged to recalculate pension benefits based on the extended period of service.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had made clear admissions under oath that the applicant was a contributory member of the pension fund from 1 June 1976 to 31 January 2014. The respondent's attempt to qualify or limit these admissions was rejected, as the admissions were not withdrawn or amended by further affidavit. The court further held that the applicant's service during the disputed period was continuous, and therefore, she was entitled to have her pension and gratuity benefits recalculated based on the extended period of service. The respondent was ordered to take all necessary steps to effect payment and obtain tax directives, and to pay the costs of the application.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to utilize the period from 01 June 1976 to 31 January 2014 as the pensionable service date in calculating the applicant's gratuity and pension benefits.
  • The respondent must take all reasonable steps to procure necessary tax directives from SARS and ensure payment of the recalculated gratuity within 90 days of this order.