Wiese v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (CCT 111/11) [2012] ZACC 5; 2012 (6) BCLR 599 (CC) (30 March 2012)

Wiese v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (CCT 111/11) [2012] ZACC 5; 2012 (6) BCLR 599 (CC) (30 March 2012)

The Constitutional Court found that the legislative amendment to the GEPL, which introduced the clean-break principle, had cured the constitutional defect previously complained of by the applicant. As a result, the substantive issues regarding the validity of the GEPL and the appropriate constitutional remedy were rendered moot, as no practical effect would result from a further order. The only remaining issue was costs. The Court held that the applicant, as a private litigant who had successfully vindicated her constitutional rights and had not received any undertaking from the Minister regarding legislative reform, was entitled to her costs. The Minister was ordered to pay the...

Citation
[2012] ZACC 5
Parties
Applicant: Mathilda Louisa Wiese; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund; Respondent: Minister of Finance; Respondent: Pension Fund Adjudicator; Respondent: Cornelius Johannes Marx
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2012
Case Number
CCT 111/11
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Confirmation and Appeal / Application for Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity and Appeal Against Remedy Order
Outcome
The matter was declared moot due to legislative amendment, and the only operative order concerned costs.
Judges
Nkabinde, Mogoeng, Yacoob, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Maya, Skweyiya, van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Equality Rights, Clean Break Principle, Divorce Pension Interest, Reading in Remedy, Constitutional Invalidity, Costs in Constitutional Litigation
Constitutional Law Family and Children Civil Procedure Equality Rights Clean Break Principle Divorce Pension Interest Reading in Remedy Constitutional Invalidity +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathilda Louisa Wiese

Applicant

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Minister of Finance

Respondent

Pension Fund Adjudicator

Respondent

Cornelius Johannes Marx

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Confirmation and Appeal / Application for Confirmation of Constitutional Invalidity and Appeal Against Remedy Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Government Employees Pension Law (GEPL) is inconsistent with section 9(1) of the Constitution by failing to afford former spouses of members of the Government Pension Fund the same rights as those under the Pension Funds Act (PFA).
  2. 2 Whether the appropriate constitutional remedy is reading in provisions of the PFA into the GEPL or suspending the declaration of invalidity.
  3. 3 Whether the subsequent legislative amendment rendered the dispute moot.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court found that the legislative amendment to the GEPL, which introduced the clean-break principle, had cured the constitutional defect previously complained of by the applicant. As a result, the substantive issues regarding the validity of the GEPL and the appropriate constitutional remedy were rendered moot, as no practical effect would result from a further order. The only remaining issue was costs. The Court held that the applicant, as a private litigant who had successfully vindicated her constitutional rights and had not received any undertaking from the Minister regarding legislative reform, was entitled to her costs. The Minister was ordered to pay the...

Court Disposition

The matter was declared moot due to legislative amendment, and the only operative order concerned costs.

Orders

  • The Minister of Finance is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs in this Court, including the costs of two counsel.