Samancor Group Pension Fund v Samancor Chrome (452/09) [2010] ZASCA 77; 2010 (4) SA 540 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 297 (SCA) (27 May 2010)

Samancor Group Pension Fund v Samancor Chrome (452/09) [2010] ZASCA 77; 2010 (4) SA 540 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 297 (SCA) (27 May 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Samancor Chrome's conduct after the adjudicator's determination, including steps taken to implement the award and attempts to settle the debt, amounted to unequivocal acquiescence and peremption of its right to challenge the determination. The delay of nearly three and a half years in launching the application caused prejudice to the Pension Fund, which could no longer claim against its insurer. The high court erred in granting condonation without considering the interests of all parties, particularly the Pension Fund. The adjudicator's determination is enforceable as a civil judgment under section 30O(1) of the Pension Funds Act. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Samancor Group Pension Fund; Respondent: Samancor Chrome; Respondent: The Pension Funds Adjudicator; Respondent: The Registrar of Pension Funds; Respondent: Gerhardus Swanepoel
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2010
Case Number
452/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court (johannesburg)
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Application to set aside the adjudicator's determination dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Harms, Mlambo, Leach, Griesel, Seriti
Legal Topics
Pension Funds Act, Condonation, Peremption, Civil Judgment Enforcement
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Pension Funds Act Condonation Peremption Civil Judgment Enforcement

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samancor Group Pension Fund

Appellant

Samancor Chrome

Respondent

The Pension Funds Adjudicator

Respondent

The Registrar of Pension Funds

Respondent

Gerhardus Swanepoel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court (johannesburg)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the high court correctly granted condonation for the late application to set aside the adjudicator's determination.
  2. 2 Whether Samancor Chrome's conduct amounted to peremption of its right to challenge the adjudicator's determination.
  3. 3 Whether the interests and prejudice to the Pension Fund were properly considered by the high court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Samancor Chrome's conduct after the adjudicator's determination, including steps taken to implement the award and attempts to settle the debt, amounted to unequivocal acquiescence and peremption of its right to challenge the determination. The delay of nearly three and a half years in launching the application caused prejudice to the Pension Fund, which could no longer claim against its insurer. The high court erred in granting condonation without considering the interests of all parties, particularly the Pension Fund. The adjudicator's determination is enforceable as a civil judgment under section 30O(1) of the Pension Funds Act. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Application to set aside the adjudicator's determination dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed. Samancor Chrome is to pay the costs of the Pension Fund and Mr Swanepoel, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and substituted with: 'The application is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.'