South Africa Case Law

Mhlontlo v Government Employees Pension Fund (2398/20)

Mhlontlo v Government Employees Pension Fund (2398/20) [2021] ZAECPEHC 46 (19 August 2021)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

2398/20

Judge

Govindjee

The court found that the respondent failed to act in accordance with its constitutional and statutory obligations by refusing to properly calculate and pay the applicant's pension benefits for his full period of service. The respondent's reliance on the Z 102 form was not supported by any legal provision in the Government Employees Pension Law or the Fund's Rules. The Department of Education did not have a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought, and its joinder was not necessary. The Fund was obliged to engage meaningfully with the applicant and take all necessary steps to ensur…

Source excerpt

• Government Employees Pension Law
• Judicial Review
• Non Joinder
• Administrative Action
• Constitutional Rights

Special Investigating Unit v Hlatshwayo and Another (GP/20/2020)

Special Investigating Unit v Hlatshwayo and Another (GP/20/2020) [2021] ZAST 3 (12 February 2021)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP/20/2020

Judge

L T Modiba

The Special Tribunal dismissed a procedural point and extended a rule nisi preserving Jacob Hlatshwayo’s pension benefits pending SIU proceedings.

• Pension Fund Preservation
• Special Tribunals Act
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Rule Nisi Extension
• Statutory Interpretation
• Pension-fund-preservation

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (886/2019)

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (886/2019) [2020] ZASCA 126; [2020] 4 All SA 710 (SCA) (9 October 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

886/2019

Judges

Navsa, Saldulker, Schippers, Dlodlo, Goosen

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 14.4.2 of the Government Employees Pension Fund Rules requires the Board to consult with employee organisations before amending the F(Z) and A(X) actuarial interest factors. Consultation must precede the decision and cannot be substituted by post hoc engagement or consultation through the PSCBC, which is not the prescribed forum. The Board's failure to consult as required rendered its decision invalid. The delay in bringing the review application was excused due to ongoing engagement and the absence of prejudice to the GEPF. The appeal was upheld, th…

Source excerpt

• Consultation Requirements
• Fiduciary Duty Of Trustees
• Legality Review
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Collective Bargaining
• Delay In Review Applications

Mahlangu v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (3297/2018)

Mahlangu v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (3297/2018) [2020] ZAGPPHC 814 (17 August 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3297/2018

Judge

Wanless

The High Court ordered the Government Employees Pension Fund to recalculate Mahlangu’s pension using service from 23 January 1980 to 31 December 2015 and pay costs on an attorney-client scale.

• Pension Benefits
• Statutory Duties Of Employer
• Proof Of Service
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Costs On Attorney And Client Scale
• Pension-benefits

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employers Pension Fund and Others (57703/16)

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employers Pension Fund and Others (57703/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 589 (15 October 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57703/16

Judge

Van der Westhuizen

The court held that Rule 14.4.2 of the GEPF Rules requires the Board to act on the advice of its actuary and to consult with the Minister and employee organisations when determining actuarial factors. However, consultation in this context means discussion, not agreement, and may occur either before or after the decision is made. The Board is not obliged to accept input from consultees. The evidence showed that both the Minister and employee organisations were consulted and acquiesced to the changes, and the applicants were represented during the relevant meetings. The court found that the req…

Source excerpt

• Consultation Requirements
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Fiduciary Duties
• Collective Bargaining
• Judicial Review

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employers Pension Fund and Others (57703/16)

Public Servants Association of South Africa and Others v Government Employers Pension Fund and Others (57703/16) [2019] ZAGPPHC 199 (25 May 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57703/16

Judge

Van der Westhuizen

The court held that consultation under GEPF Rule 14.4.2 did not require agreement or prior consultation, and dismissed the review about actuarial factor changes.

• Consultation Requirements
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Judicial Review
• Fiduciary Duties
• Interpretation Of Rules
• Judicial-review

Government Employees Pension Fund v Sithole and Others (JA121/2014)

Government Employees Pension Fund v Sithole and Others (JA121/2014) [2018] ZALAC 17; [2018] 11 BLLR 1096 (LAC) (10 July 2018)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA121/2014

Judges

Phatshoane, Musi, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that a Labour Court judge lacked jurisdiction to rehear a matter already removed from the roll, so the later proceedings were a nullity.

• Jurisdiction Of Labour Court
• Res Judicata
• Enforcement Of Settlement Agreement
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Labour-court-jurisdiction

University of Limpopo v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (91954/2015)

University of Limpopo v Government Employees Pension Fund and Another (91954/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 16 (21 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91954/2015

Judge

Murphy

The High Court dismissed an urgent interdict application seeking to stop pension benefits from being paid pending action, finding no prima facie right shown.

• Interim Interdict
• Pension Benefits
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Prima Facie Right
• Prescription
• Interim-interdict

Mpofu v Government Employees Pension Fund (228/2015)

Mpofu v Government Employees Pension Fund (228/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 53 (4 August 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

228/2015

Judge

G Goosen

The respondent failed to process the applicant's pension claim despite being alerted and provided with all necessary documents. There is no statutory or rule-based requirement that only the employer may submit claim documents, and the applicant was entitled to communicate directly with the Fund. The respondent's reliance on non-receipt of documents from the Department and non-joinder is unfounded. The Fund breached its statutory and constitutional obligations by failing to act and must now process the applicant's claim in accordance with section 26 of the Government Employees Pension Laws, 19…

Source excerpt

• Government Employees Pension Law
• Statutory Obligation To Pay Benefits
• Failure To Process Claim
• Non Joinder
• Constitutional Obligations

S v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (35511/2012)

S v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (35511/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 518 (16 July 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35511/2012

Judge

Louw AJ

The High Court recorded an agreed allocation of a deceased employee’s pension gratuity and ordered the Government Employees Pension Fund to pay costs.

• Allocation Of Death Benefits
• Government Employees Pension Law
• Curator Bonis Appointment
• Costs Award
• Government-employees-pension-fund
• Death-benefit-allocation