Eskom Pension and Provident Fund v Molefe and Others (93895/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 775 (12 October 2022)

Eskom Pension and Provident Fund v Molefe and Others (93895/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 775 (12 October 2022)

The court found that Rule 41A was not applicable to the quantification application as it was launched before the rule came into effect, and that mediation was moot since the relevant issues had already been resolved by agreement or judicial determination. The respondent failed to provide evidence to support his version of the facts, and the actuarial differences were legal rather than factual. The quantification order was a direct implementation of the full court's previous judgment, and no judicial deference to the respondent's actuary was warranted. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reasons or constitutional matters...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 775
Parties
Applicant: Eskom Pension and Provident Fund; Respondent: Brian Molefe; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Limited; Respondent: Commissioner for South African Revenue Service
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2022
Case Number
93895/2019
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Quantification Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Rule 41a Mediation, Quantification of Judgment, Set Off, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Leave to Appeal Rule 41a Mediation Quantification of Judgment Set Off Judicial Discretion

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eskom Pension and Provident Fund

Applicant

Brian Molefe

Respondent

Eskom Holdings SOC Limited

Respondent

Commissioner for South African Revenue Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Quantification Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in exercising its discretion under Rule 41A regarding mediation.
  2. 2 Whether the court travelled beyond the pleaded facts or made factual misdirections.
  3. 3 Whether there were material disputes of fact requiring a different approach.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Rule 41A was not applicable to the quantification application as it was launched before the rule came into effect, and that mediation was moot since the relevant issues had already been resolved by agreement or judicial determination. The respondent failed to provide evidence to support his version of the facts, and the actuarial differences were legal rather than factual. The quantification order was a direct implementation of the full court's previous judgment, and no judicial deference to the respondent's actuary was warranted. The court concluded that there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and no compelling reasons or constitutional matters...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Costs are awarded against the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.