Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Another v Mudau (A540/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 538 (22 June 2020)

Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Another v Mudau (A540/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 538 (22 June 2020)

The majority held that the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the complaint as it related to the administration and application of the Fund's rules, and that the amended rule could not be applied retrospectively to the respondent, as it was not approved and registered at the time of his resignation and payment. Therefore, the respondent's withdrawal benefit should have been calculated under the old rule, and the appeal was dismissed. The dissenting judgment found that the Adjudicator exceeded her powers by invalidating the retrospective effect of the rule amendment, which had been properly approved and registered by the Registrar. The dissent argued that, in terms of section 12(4)...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 538
Parties
Appellant: Municipal Employees' Pension Fund; Appellant: Akani Retirement Fund Administrators; Respondent: Pandelani Midas Mudau
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Case Number
A540/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Court Appeal Against Judgment on Review Under Section 30 P of the Pension Funds Act
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs (majority); dissent would have upheld the appeal and set aside the Adjudicator's award.
Judges
Kubushi, Avvakoumides, Leathern
Legal Topics
Pension Fund Rule Amendment, Retrospective Application of Rules, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Review of Adjudicator Determination
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Pension Fund Rule Amendment Retrospective Application of Rules Jurisdiction of Adjudicator Review of Adjudicator Determination

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Municipal Employees' Pension Fund

Appellant

Akani Retirement Fund Administrators

Appellant

Pandelani Midas Mudau

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Court Appeal Against Judgment on Review Under Section 30 P of the Pension Funds Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Pension Fund Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the complaint regarding the retrospective application of a rule amendment.
  2. 2 Whether the effective date of the amended rule was the date of approval and registration or the date determined by the Fund and approved by the Registrar.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's withdrawal benefit should have been calculated under the old rule or the amended rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the complaint as it related to the administration and application of the Fund's rules, and that the amended rule could not be applied retrospectively to the respondent, as it was not approved and registered at the time of his resignation and payment. Therefore, the respondent's withdrawal benefit should have been calculated under the old rule, and the appeal was dismissed. The dissenting judgment found that the Adjudicator exceeded her powers by invalidating the retrospective effect of the rule amendment, which had been properly approved and registered by the Registrar. The dissent argued that, in terms of section 12(4)...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs (majority); dissent would have upheld the appeal and set aside the Adjudicator's award.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.