Rousseau and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (2938/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 285 (21 October 2022)
The court held that the decision of the Government Pension Administration Agency to allocate pension benefits to the major children was vitiated by its failure to consider the deceased's 2010 nomination form. The Board was unaware of the nomination and did not take it into account, resulting in a decision made...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] ZAFSHC 285
- Parties
- Applicant: Sellmurry Rousseau; Applicant: Francois John Domburg; Applicant: Juandre Adrian Domburg; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: Minister of Defence; Respondent: Gertie Mary Domburg; Respondent: Marouise Wilnet Jonica Domburg; Respondent: Geraldine Samantha Domburg; Respondent: Andrea Jacquiline Domburg; Respondent: Government Pension Administration Agency; Respondent: Sheriff of Bloemfontein West
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 21 October 2022
- Case Number
- 2938/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion
- Outcome
- Application for review granted; decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
- Judges
- Reinders, Chesiwe
- Legal Topics
- Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Pension Fund Discretion, Definition of Dependant, Review of Administrative Action, Equitable Distribution, Costs Order
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sellmurry Rousseau
Applicant
Francois John Domburg
Applicant
Juandre Adrian Domburg
Applicant
Government Employees Pension Fund
Respondent
Minister of Defence
Respondent
Gertie Mary Domburg
Respondent
Marouise Wilnet Jonica Domburg
Respondent
Geraldine Samantha Domburg
Respondent
Andrea Jacquiline Domburg
Respondent
Government Pension Administration Agency
Respondent
Sheriff of Bloemfontein West
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decision of the Government Pension Administration Agency to allocate pension benefits to major children was lawful and rational.
- 2 Whether the Board of Trustees exercised its discretion properly by not considering the deceased's 2010 nomination form.
- 3 Whether the decision constitutes administrative action reviewable under PAJA.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the decision of the Government Pension Administration Agency to allocate pension benefits to the major children was vitiated by its failure to consider the deceased's 2010 nomination form. The Board was unaware of the nomination and did not take it into account, resulting in a decision made without all relevant information. While the Board has a wide discretion to allocate benefits among dependants and may override a member's wishes, such discretion must be exercised rationally and with due regard to all relevant factors, including valid nominations. The statutory definition of 'dependant' includes major children, and financial dependency or estrangement does not...
Court Disposition
Application for review granted; decision set aside and remitted for reconsideration.
Orders
- The decision of the seventh respondent and the allocation of dependants (including any allocations dated 27 and 28 October 2020) in respect of Willem Andries Franswa Domburg is reviewed and set aside.
- The matter is referred back to the seventh respondent for reconsideration and reallocation of dependants, with due consideration of the deceased's nomination form dated 5 July 2010.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment