Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Blue Crane Route Municipality v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund (CA 221/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 4 (24 January 2023)
The High Court dismissed a municipality’s appeal against refusal of rescission, holding it had not shown a bona fide defence or grounds under Rule 42.
Post Office Retirement Fund v South African Post Office SOC Ltd and Others (1134/2020) [2021] ZASCA 186; [2022] 2 All SA 71 (SCA) (30 December 2021)
SAPO is under a statutory obligation, in terms of rule 3 of the Post Office Retirement Fund's rules, to pay monthly pension contributions to the Fund, including both employer and employee portions, by the first working day of each month. The rules do not confer any discretion on SAPO to withhold payment or prioritise other creditors. SAPO's financial distress, whether caused by the COVID-19 pandemic or pre-existing managerial failures, does not constitute supervening impossibility of performance, as the impossibility is not absolute, not caused by vis major or casus fortuitus, and is self-cre…
Source excerpt
South African Municipal Workers' Union National Provident Fund v Umzimkhulu Local Municipality and Others (297/2018) [2019] ZASCA 41 (29 March 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that rule 3.2.1 of the Fund unambiguously prohibits members from withdrawing from the Fund while remaining in service with the Municipality. Termination of membership and transfer of benefits can only occur upon cessation of service, as provided by rule 3.2.2. Section 13A(5) of the Pension Funds Act applies only after membership has been terminated according to the Fund's rules, and section 14 and rule 11.11 do not provide for individual voluntary transfers but rather regulate amalgamation and transfer of business. The court found that compulsory membership of…
Source excerpt
Mohapi v De Beers Pension Fund and Another (64/2015) [2016] ZASCA 14 (11 March 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mohapi was not entitled to ill-health retirement benefits because his dismissal stood and the employer had not formed the requisite medical opinion.
Sasol Limited v Chemical Industries National Provident Fund (20612/2014) [2015] ZASCA 113 (7 September 2015)
The court held that the process for transferring members from the respondent fund to the appellant funds was not validly completed. Although some steps were taken to comply with the rules, the trustees of the respondent fund did not make an express or tacit decision that they were satisfied the transfer was reasonable and equitable and accorded full recognition to members' rights and expectations, as required by rule 10.2.3. The communication exercise, while substantial, did not substitute for the trustees' fiduciary decision. Furthermore, the effective date for cessation of contributions is…
Source excerpt
Germiston Municipal Retirement Fund v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (36600/2011) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1073 (22 May 2015)
The court held that the interpretation of Rule 10.8.1 had already been authoritatively determined by the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the Municipality's attempt to introduce new historical evidence was rejected due to lack of explanation for its previous omission and failure to meet the requirements for admitting further evidence. The public policy defence was dismissed, as the rule was validly agreed, registered, and protected by statute, and Section 50 of the MFMA did not retrospectively invalidate such agreements. The court found no factual basis for the allegation that the Fund's board fa…
Source excerpt
South African Local Authorities Pension Fund v Mthembu and Another (4655/2013) [2014] ZAKZDHC 26 (6 June 2014)
The court found that the Applicant's rules did not define 'full-time student' nor restrict eligibility to students at traditional contact institutions. The rules were broadly worded and did not specify the type of educational institution or the manner of study required for continued pension benefits. The Applicant's insistence on a narrow interpretation and additional evidentiary requirements amounted to an attempt to introduce unregistered amendments to the rules, which is impermissible. The evidence showed that the First Respondent's daughter was enrolled at UNISA for five modules, attended…
Source excerpt
Marion v Avusa Limited Pension Fund (CA 169/10) [2012] ZAECGHC 39; [2012] 4 All SA 63 (ECG); 2013 (1) SA 617 (ECG) (23 May 2012)
High Court appeal about how to calculate a permanent disability lump sum under pension fund rules and an insurer's policy; appeal dismissed.
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
Hoffmann v Pension Funds Adjudicator and Others (2701/11) [2011] ZAWCHC 446; [2012] 2 All SA 198 (WCC) (6 December 2011)
The High Court held that the pension dispute fell within the Pension Funds Act, set aside the Adjudicator’s ruling, and ordered Class 1 Executive benefits.
Explore more
