Ramaphakela and Others v Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Another (2016/40359) [2019] ZAGPJHC 272 (22 August 2019)
The court found that it had erred in its previous judgment by not determining that the first applicant's complaint fell within the ambit of the definition of 'a complaint' in section 1 of the Pension Funds Act. The existence of conflicting judgments on the jurisdiction of the Pension Funds Adjudicator, specifically...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] ZAGPJHC 272
- Parties
- Applicant: M F Ramaphakela; Applicant: Standard Bank of South Africa Limited; Applicant: Sheriff of the High Court of South Africa Benoni; Respondent: Municipal Employees’ Pension Fund; Respondent: Akani Retirement Fund Administrators (Pty) Ltd
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2016/40359
- Procedural Posture
- Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal granted to a Full Bench of the Gauteng Division.
- Judges
- U Bhoola
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Pension Funds Act, Jurisdiction of Adjudicator, Conflicting Judgments
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
M F Ramaphakela
Applicant
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited
Applicant
Sheriff of the High Court of South Africa Benoni
Applicant
Municipal Employees’ Pension Fund
Respondent
Akani Retirement Fund Administrators (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to Full Bench
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Pension Funds Adjudicator had jurisdiction to make the determination.
- 2 Whether the first applicant's complaint falls within the definition of 'a complaint' under section 1 of the Pension Funds Act.
- 3 Whether there are reasonable prospects of success for the appeal or compelling reasons for leave to appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that it had erred in its previous judgment by not determining that the first applicant's complaint fell within the ambit of the definition of 'a complaint' in section 1 of the Pension Funds Act. The existence of conflicting judgments on the jurisdiction of the Pension Funds Adjudicator, specifically the Mongwaketse decision, provided a compelling reason to grant leave to appeal. The test in section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act was satisfied, as there were reasonable prospects of success and conflicting judgments on the matter.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal granted to a Full Bench of the Gauteng Division.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal against the full judgment and order to a Full Bench of the Gauteng Division is granted.
- Costs are costs in the appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case Number: 2016/40359
In the matter between:
M F RAMAPHAKELA STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA LIMITED First Applicant Second Applicant SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BENONI -and- Third Applicant MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES’ PENSION FUND AKANI RETIREMENT FUND ADMINISTRATORS (PTY) LTD First Respondent Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
BHOOLA AJ :
[1] The first applicant seeks leave to appeal against the whole of my judgment and order handed down in this matter on 13 December 2018 in which I ordered that :
1.1 The Pension Funds Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to make the determination;
1.2 The determination is invalid and of no force and effect, and is accordingly set aside;
1.3 The first applicant is to pay the costs of the application as well as the reserved costs of Part A.
[2] The grounds of appeal are set out fully in the notice of application for leave to appeal.
[3] Having read the written submissions of the first applicant and having heard the oral submissions of counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that I erred in a number of respects in making the above judgment and order, in particular in not determining that the first applicant's complaint fell within the ambit of the definition of "a complaint" as defined in section 1 of the Pension Funds Act, 24 of 1956. On this issue counsel for the first applicant referred me to a judgment of Van Der Linde J in Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and another v Mongwaketse and others (47457/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 162 (4 June 2019) in which the Court came to a different conclusion.
[4] The test to be applied in an application for leave to appeal is that referred to in s 17 of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013. Section 17(1) provides:
“Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of the opinion that –
(a) (i) the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success; or
(ii) there is some other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;
(b) the decision sought on appeal does not fall within the ambit of section 16 (2) (a); and
(c) where the decision sought to be appealed does not dispose of all the issues in the case, the appeal would lead to a just and prompt resolution of the real issues between the parties.
[5] In my view, not only would the appeal have reasonable prospects of success but also there are conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration as provided for under s 17(1) (a) (i) and (ii) above.
Order
[6] Accordingly, I make the following order:
a. The application for leave to appeal against my full judgment and order to a Full Bench of the Gauteng Division is granted.
b. Costs are costs in the appeal.
___________________________________________________
U. BHOOLA
ACTING JUDGE
HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
APPEARANCES
Counsel for the First Applicant: Adv F Matika
Counsel for the Respondents : Adv JPV McNally SC