Papu v Government for Employees Pension Fund (3676/2021) [2024] ZAECQBHC 17 (5 March 2024)

Papu v Government for Employees Pension Fund (3676/2021) [2024] ZAECQBHC 17 (5 March 2024)

The court found that the respondent acted unlawfully, unreasonably, and procedurally unfair by failing to investigate and rectify contradictory information regarding the applicant's pensionable service period. The respondent's reliance solely on employer-completed forms, despite having documents indicating an earlier commencement date, did not satisfy its constitutional and statutory obligations under PAJA. The court followed previous decisions from the same division, which held that the respondent must ensure beneficiaries receive correct pension payments and must take proactive steps to correct errors. The applicant established a clear case for judicial review and rectification of her...

Citation
[2024] ZAECQBHC 17
Parties
Applicant: Nomakwezi Papu; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2024
Case Number
3676/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent's failure to correct its records is set aside as unlawful administrative action. The respondent is ordered to correct its records and pay costs.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Judicial Review of Administrative Action, Pension Benefits Calculation, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Judicial Review of Administrative Action Pension Benefits Calculation Procedural Fairness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomakwezi Papu

Applicant

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's failure to correct its records regarding the applicant's pensionable service period constitutes unlawful administrative action.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's reliance on employer-completed forms without investigating contradictory information is procedurally fair.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to have her pensionable service period corrected from 1 March 1995 to 12 February 1987.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent acted unlawfully, unreasonably, and procedurally unfair by failing to investigate and rectify contradictory information regarding the applicant's pensionable service period. The respondent's reliance solely on employer-completed forms, despite having documents indicating an earlier commencement date, did not satisfy its constitutional and statutory obligations under PAJA. The court followed previous decisions from the same division, which held that the respondent must ensure beneficiaries receive correct pension payments and must take proactive steps to correct errors. The applicant established a clear case for judicial review and rectification of her...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent's failure to correct its records is set aside as unlawful administrative action. The respondent is ordered to correct its records and pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent’s failure to correct its records relating to the applicant’s pensionable service period commencing on 12 February 1987 and concluding on 31 October 2019 is judicially reviewed and set aside as unlawful administrative action, which is not reasonable and/or procedurally fair.
  • The respondent must take such administrative or other steps as may be necessary to correct its records so as to reflect the applicant’s pensionable service discharged with the Department of Education, Eastern Cape Province, commencing on 12 February 1987 and terminating on 31 October 2019.