Pretorius and Another v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Others (25095/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 526; 2014 (6) SA 77 (GP) (31 July 2014)

Pretorius and Another v Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund and Others (25095/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 526; 2014 (6) SA 77 (GP) (31 July 2014)

The court found that the applicants, as pensioner members of the relevant funds, have locus standi under section 38 of the Constitution to bring a class action. The requirements for certification, as set out in Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others, are to be considered as factors, not strict prerequisites, and the interests of justice are paramount. The applicants identified triable issues regarding the alleged pension deficit and the lawfulness of changes to pension increase policies. The court held that the substantive protection of legitimate expectation in pension fund matters remains open in South African law and should be argued at trial,...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 526
Parties
Applicant: Johan Pieter Hendrik Pretorius; Applicant: Johan Michael Kruger; Respondent: Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund; Respondent: Transport Pension Fund; Respondent: Metropolitan Retirement Administrators (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Transnet SOC Limited; Respondent: Minister of Public Enterprises; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: The President of the Republic of South Africa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2014
Case Number
25095/2013
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Certification of Class Action Under Section 38(c) of the Constitution
Outcome
Application for certification of class action granted against the first, second, and fourth respondents; no costs order against the state parties.
Judges
E M Makgoba
Legal Topics
Class Action Certification, Bill of Rights Standing, Pension Fund Liabilities, Legitimate Expectation, Review of Administrative Action, Legacy Debt
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Land and Property Class Action Certification Bill of Rights Standing Pension Fund Liabilities Legitimate Expectation Review of Administrative Action +1 more

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Pieter Hendrik Pretorius

Applicant

Johan Michael Kruger

Applicant

Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund

Respondent

Transport Pension Fund

Respondent

Metropolitan Retirement Administrators (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Transnet SOC Limited

Respondent

Minister of Public Enterprises

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

The President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Certification of Class Action Under Section 38(c) of the Constitution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have made out a case for certification of a class action under section 38(c) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established the requirements for certification of a class action in the interests of justice.
  3. 3 Whether there is a triable issue between the applicants and the respondents regarding pension fund liabilities and benefit expectations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as pensioner members of the relevant funds, have locus standi under section 38 of the Constitution to bring a class action. The requirements for certification, as set out in Children’s Resource Centre Trust and Others v Pioneer Food (Pty) Ltd and Others, are to be considered as factors, not strict prerequisites, and the interests of justice are paramount. The applicants identified triable issues regarding the alleged pension deficit and the lawfulness of changes to pension increase policies. The court held that the substantive protection of legitimate expectation in pension fund matters remains open in South African law and should be argued at trial,...

Court Disposition

Application for certification of class action granted against the first, second, and fourth respondents; no costs order against the state parties.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the first and second applicants to institute a class action under section 38(c) of the Constitution as representatives of the members of the first and second respondents against one or more or all of the first, second, and fourth respondents.
  • The second applicant may act as representative of all members of the first respondent, except those who opt out.