RFS Administrators (Pty) Ltd and Another v NFMW And Others (19948/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 441 (30 May 2016)

RFS Administrators (Pty) Ltd and Another v NFMW And Others (19948/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 441 (30 May 2016)

The court found that the administration agreements expressly permitted termination by either party on three months' written notice, without requiring reasons. The respondents complied with this requirement, rendering the termination lawful and valid. The applicants' reliance on the Protected Disclosures Act was misplaced, as they were independent contractors and not employees of the respondents, and their motivation was for personal gain. The court rejected the argument that the termination constituted unlawful victimisation. Accordingly, the application for interim relief was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs, including those for two counsel.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 441
Parties
Applicant: RFS Administrators (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: RFS Homeloans (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: National Fund for Municipal Workers ('NFMW'); Respondent: National Pension Fund for Municipal Workers ('NPFMW'); Respondent: Ronald John Field; Respondent: S Samon; Respondent: Principal Officer of the NFMW and NPFMW NO; Respondent: Registrar of Pension Funds; Respondent: Financial Services Board; Respondent: Independent Municipal Allied Trade Union ('IMATU'); Respondent: South African Municipal Workers Union ('SAMWU'); Respondent: South African Local Government Association ('SALGA'); Respondent: Sanlam Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2016
Case Number
19948/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Main Proceedings
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
M Mbongwe
Legal Topics
Administration Agreement Termination, Protected Disclosure Act, Interim Interdict, Contractual Rights, Costs Order
Commercial and Corporate Civil Procedure Administration Agreement Termination Protected Disclosure Act Interim Interdict Contractual Rights Costs Order

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RFS Administrators (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

RFS Homeloans (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

National Fund for Municipal Workers ('NFMW')

Respondent

National Pension Fund for Municipal Workers ('NPFMW')

Respondent

Ronald John Field

Respondent

S Samon

Respondent

Principal Officer of the NFMW and NPFMW NO

Respondent

Registrar of Pension Funds

Respondent

Financial Services Board

Respondent

Independent Municipal Allied Trade Union ('IMATU')

Respondent

South African Municipal Workers Union ('SAMWU')

Respondent

South African Local Government Association ('SALGA')

Respondent

Sanlam Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Pending Main Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the administration agreements by the respondents was lawful and valid.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to protection under the Protected Disclosures Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim relief pending the outcome of the main proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the administration agreements expressly permitted termination by either party on three months' written notice, without requiring reasons. The respondents complied with this requirement, rendering the termination lawful and valid. The applicants' reliance on the Protected Disclosures Act was misplaced, as they were independent contractors and not employees of the respondents, and their motivation was for personal gain. The court rejected the argument that the termination constituted unlawful victimisation. Accordingly, the application for interim relief was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay costs, including those for two counsel.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • This application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.