Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Another v Mantsho and Others (A152/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 803 (4 November 2020)

Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Another v Mantsho and Others (A152/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 803 (4 November 2020)

The appeal was upheld because the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the definition of 'Local Authority' and the relevant Rules. The definition of 'Local Authority' in the MEPF Rules is inclusive and covers entities such as the Tshwane Economic Development Agency, regardless of their participation status in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 803
Parties
Appellant: Municipal Employees Pension Fund; Appellant: Akani Retirements Fund Administration; Respondent: Linkie Tshwarano Mantsho; Respondent: Pension Funds Adjudicator; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Tshwane Economic Development Agency
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 November 2020
Case Number
A152/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside and substituted; application dismissed with costs; order of Pension Funds Adjudicator reinstated.
Judges
Matsemela, Makhoba, Van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Rules, Withdrawal Benefits, Interpretation of Contracts, Dual Membership, Municipal Entities
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Pension Fund Rules Withdrawal Benefits Interpretation of Contracts Dual Membership Municipal Entities

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipal Employees Pension Fund

Appellant

Akani Retirements Fund Administration

Appellant

Linkie Tshwarano Mantsho

Respondent

Pension Funds Adjudicator

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Tshwane Economic Development Agency

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 39 of the Municipal Employees Pension Fund Rules prohibits payment of withdrawal benefits to a member who is re-employed by another Local Authority before such benefit is paid.
  2. 2 Whether the definition of 'Local Authority' in the Rules includes entities not participating in the MEPF.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred by reading in additional text into the definition of 'Local Authority'.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was upheld because the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the definition of 'Local Authority' and the relevant Rules. The definition of 'Local Authority' in the MEPF Rules is inclusive and covers entities such as the Tshwane Economic Development Agency, regardless of their participation status in the MEPF. Rule 39 prohibits payment of withdrawal benefits to a member who, after leaving the service of a Local Authority, is re-employed by another Local Authority before the benefit is paid. The court a quo incorrectly read in a limitation that is not present in the Rules and failed to consider the purpose and context of Rules 37 and 39. The correct interpretation, supported...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of court a quo set aside and substituted; application dismissed with costs; order of Pension Funds Adjudicator reinstated.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application with costs.