Roestorf and Another v Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund and Others (235/11)
Roestorf and Another v Johannesburg Municipal Pension Fund and Others (235/11) [2012] ZASCA 24; 2012 (6) SA 184 (SCA); [2012] 3 All SA 68 (SCA) (23 March 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' claims for recalculation of pension benefits were not time-barred or prescribed, as ongoing monthly payments by the Fund constituted tacit acknowledgment of liability, interrupting prescription. However, the Fund's calculation of the pension percentage based on the actual age at retirement (1.7516%) was correct under the rules, and the appellants were not entitled to the higher percentage (2.0108%) applicable to retirement at age 63. Bonus service and additional allowances were only granted as specified in the rules and did not extend to t…
Source excerpt
- Pension Funds Act
- Prescription
- Interpretation Of Fund Rules
- Jurisdiction Of High Court
- Bonus Service
- Final Average Emoluments