Philip and Others v Government Pensions Administration Agency and Others (71722/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 596 (12 September 2017)

Philip and Others v Government Pensions Administration Agency and Others (71722/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 596 (12 September 2017)

The court found that the applicants were government employees on 2 September 1998 and thus eligible for the pension redress program. The respondents' rejection of their applications was based on an incorrect requirement. The dispute was not about the interpretation or application of collective agreements but rather an administrative decision susceptible to review by the High Court. The Labour Court's jurisdiction was not exclusive, and the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction. The applicants made out a proper case for the relief sought, and the respondents' contentions regarding jurisdiction were rejected.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 596
Parties
Applicant: Kuzikkattu Mathew Philip; Applicant: Varkey Baby Kochukarottu; Applicant: Maramma Phillip; Applicant: Annamma Phillip; Applicant: George Mathews; Applicant: George Parekkadavil; Applicant: Baby Mathew Parekkadavil; Applicant: Palamoottil Kurian-Abraham; Applicant: Thresiamma Jacob; Applicant: Chirathalattu Oolahannan Ninan; Applicant: Gigimol Ninan; Applicant: Grasamma Baby; Applicant: Koshy Alexander; Applicant: Elizabeth Alexander; Applicant: Puthenveetil George Philip; Applicant: Puramadathil Mathai Kuriako; Applicant: Chacko Mathew Panicker; Applicant: Saramma Mathew; Respondent: Government Pensions Administration Agency; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: Minister of Basic Education; Respondent: Premier of the Limpopo Province; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Education: Limpopo Province; Respondent: Minister of Finance
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 September 2017
Case Number
71722/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; respondents' decisions reviewed and set aside; declaratory and mandatory orders issued; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
TM Makgoka
Legal Topics
Public Service Act, Collective Bargaining Agreements, Jurisdiction of High Court, Pension Redress Program, Government Employees Pension Fund
Administrative Law Labour Law Public Service Act Collective Bargaining Agreements Jurisdiction of High Court Pension Redress Program Government Employees Pension Fund

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kuzikkattu Mathew Philip

Applicant

Varkey Baby Kochukarottu

Applicant

Maramma Phillip

Applicant

Annamma Phillip

Applicant

George Mathews

Applicant

George Parekkadavil

Applicant

Baby Mathew Parekkadavil

Applicant

Palamoottil Kurian-Abraham

Applicant

Thresiamma Jacob

Applicant

Chirathalattu Oolahannan Ninan

Applicant

Gigimol Ninan

Applicant

Grasamma Baby

Applicant

Koshy Alexander

Applicant

Elizabeth Alexander

Applicant

Puthenveetil George Philip

Applicant

Puramadathil Mathai Kuriako

Applicant

Chacko Mathew Panicker

Applicant

Saramma Mathew

Applicant

Government Pensions Administration Agency

Respondent

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Minister of Basic Education

Respondent

Premier of the Limpopo Province

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Education: Limpopo Province

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review the administrative decisions of the respondents regarding the pension redress program.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants qualify as eligible beneficiaries under the pension redress program pursuant to resolution 12 of 2002.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicants' applications was lawful and reasonable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were government employees on 2 September 1998 and thus eligible for the pension redress program. The respondents' rejection of their applications was based on an incorrect requirement. The dispute was not about the interpretation or application of collective agreements but rather an administrative decision susceptible to review by the High Court. The Labour Court's jurisdiction was not exclusive, and the High Court had concurrent jurisdiction. The applicants made out a proper case for the relief sought, and the respondents' contentions regarding jurisdiction were rejected.

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondents' decisions reviewed and set aside; declaratory and mandatory orders issued; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The resolutions of the first and second respondents made on 15 March 2016 declining the applicants' applications to benefit under the pensions redress program are reviewed and set aside.
  • It is declared that the applicants are eligible applicants in terms of the pension redress program pursuant to resolution 12 of 2002 issued by the Public Service Coordination Bargaining Council.