Pretorius and Another v Transport Pension Fund and Others (42355/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 649 (5 August 2016)

Pretorius and Another v Transport Pension Fund and Others (42355/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 649 (5 August 2016)

The court found that the particulars of claim failed to identify the terms of the alleged state promise with sufficient clarity, rendering them vague and embarrassing. The allegations of unlawful state conduct did not meet the threshold for administrative action as defined by statute. The claim for unfair labour...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 649
Parties
Plaintiff: Johan Pieter Hendrik Pretorius; Plaintiff: Montana David Kwapa; Defendant: Transport Pension Fund; Defendant: Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund; Defendant: Transnet Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2016
Case Number
42355/2015
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Order Upholding Exceptions to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel for the first and second defendants.
Judges
M F Legodi
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Unlawful State Conduct, Unfair Labour Practice, Administrative Action
Civil Procedure Labour Law Exception Procedure Unlawful State Conduct Unfair Labour Practice Administrative Action

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Pieter Hendrik Pretorius

Plaintiff

Montana David Kwapa

Plaintiff

Transport Pension Fund

Defendant

Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund

Defendant

Transnet Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against an Order Upholding Exceptions to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim sufficiently identified the terms of the alleged state promise.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct alleged constituted unlawful state conduct or administrative action.
  3. 3 Whether the claim disclosed an unfair labour practice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim failed to identify the terms of the alleged state promise with sufficient clarity, rendering them vague and embarrassing. The allegations of unlawful state conduct did not meet the threshold for administrative action as defined by statute. The claim for unfair labour practice was inadequately pleaded and lacked merit. The grounds of appeal did not raise reasonable prospects of success, and the cost order was not appealable in the circumstances. Accordingly, leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel for the first and second defendants.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs' application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include the costs of two counsel for the first and second defendants.