Pretorius and Another v Transport Pension Fund and Another (CCT95/17) [2018] ZACC 10; [2018] 7 BLLR 633 (CC); 2018 (7) BCLR 838 (CC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1937 (CC); 2019 (2) SA 37 (CC) (25 April 2018)

Pretorius and Another v Transport Pension Fund and Another (CCT95/17) [2018] ZACC 10; [2018] 7 BLLR 633 (CC); 2018 (7) BCLR 838 (CC); (2018) 39 ILJ 1937 (CC); 2019 (2) SA 37 (CC) (25 April 2018)

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants' claims based on the 1989 promise were not vague or embarrassing and disclosed valid causes of action in contract, unlawful state action, and unfair labour practice. The Court found that the contractual claim was sufficiently pleaded and that the principle established in KZN allows for claims against the state based on unconscionable conduct, even if the conduct could also amount to administrative action under PAJA. The unfair labour practice claim was not precluded by the absence of a current employment relationship, as section 23(1) of the Constitution protects everyone. The principle of subsidiarity does not operate as a rigid bar to...

Citation
[2018] ZACC 10
Parties
Applicant: Johan Pieter Pretorius; Applicant: Montana David Kwapa; Respondent: Transport Pension Fund; Respondent: Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund; Respondent: Transnet Limited
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2018
Case Number
CCT95/17
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From High Court Exceptions Ruling
Outcome
Appeal upheld; exceptions dismissed; leave to appeal granted; cross-appeals dismissed.
Judges
Zondo DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jafta J, Kathree Setiloane AJ, Kollapen AJ, Madlanga J, Mhlantla J, Theron J, Zondi AJ
Legal Topics
Exceptions to Pleadings, Unfair Labour Practice, Legitimate Expectation, State Liability, Subsidiarity Principle, Social Security Rights
Constitutional Law Labour Law Civil Procedure Exceptions to Pleadings Unfair Labour Practice Legitimate Expectation State Liability Subsidiarity Principle +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 30 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Pieter Pretorius

Applicant

Montana David Kwapa

Applicant

Transport Pension Fund

Respondent

Transnet Second Defined Benefit Fund

Respondent

Transnet Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Constitutional Court Appeal From High Court Exceptions Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1989 promise regarding pension increases is enforceable against Transnet and its pension funds.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' claims in contract, unlawful state action, and unfair labour practice disclose valid causes of action.
  3. 3 Whether claims based on unconscionable state conduct are cognisable outside the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the applicants' claims based on the 1989 promise were not vague or embarrassing and disclosed valid causes of action in contract, unlawful state action, and unfair labour practice. The Court found that the contractual claim was sufficiently pleaded and that the principle established in KZN allows for claims against the state based on unconscionable conduct, even if the conduct could also amount to administrative action under PAJA. The unfair labour practice claim was not precluded by the absence of a current employment relationship, as section 23(1) of the Constitution protects everyone. The principle of subsidiarity does not operate as a rigid bar to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; exceptions dismissed; leave to appeal granted; cross-appeals dismissed.

Orders

  • The applicants are granted leave to appeal.
  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.