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
Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Rachoshi and Others (A217/2024; 25318/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 160 (14 February 2025)
The Full Court upheld Brinant’s appeal, set aside the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s determination, and held the complaint was time-barred and settled.
Eskom Holdings Soc LTD v Babcock Ntuthuko Engineering (Pty) Ltd (A2023/099598) [2024] ZAGPJHC 990 (3 October 2024)
The High Court held that an adjudicator’s award remained enforceable pending arbitration, dismissed Eskom’s jurisdiction and payment objections, and ordered costs against Eskom.
Zybutz v Body Corporate of Helianthus and Others (17944/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 233 (2 September 2024)
The High Court held that a CSOS Adjudicator wrongly declined jurisdiction over a dispute about body corporate refusal of special resolutions for building plans.
Brinant Security Services (Pty) Ltd v Private Security Sector Provident Fund and Others (A113/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1113 (6 September 2023)
The court held that the Adjudicator is bound by the time bar in section 30I(1) of the Pension Funds Act and does not have discretion to condone or extend the period. The Adjudicator must consider whether the complaint relates to acts or omissions occurring more than three years before the complaint was received. The court found that the Adjudicator had failed to consider the jurisdictional fact and that the determinations may have included periods that were prescribed. The court concluded that the determinations should be set aside and the complaints remitted to the Adjudicator for proper inv…
Source excerpt
Municipal Gratuity Fund v Pension Funds Adjudicator and Another (364/2022)) [2023] ZASCA 116; [2023] 4 All SA 1 (SCA); 2024 (3) SA 439 (SCA) (31 July 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to consider the complaint, as Ms Mutsila had engaged with the Fund and was advised to refer her dispute to the Adjudicator, satisfying the statutory requirements. The lis pendens defence was rejected because the pending custody litigation was unrelated to the factual dependency issue central to the pension dispute. However, the Court found that the Adjudicator failed to comply with the audi alteram partem principle by not affording the Fund a proper opportunity to respond to the complaint before making its determination. T…
Source excerpt
Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Another v Ramohale and Others (27708/18) [2022] ZAGPJHC 164 (18 March 2022)
The High Court reviewed and set aside a Pension Funds Adjudicator determination, holding the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and that a late appeal should be condoned.
Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Another v Mongwaketse (CCT 34/21) [2022] ZACC 9; 2022 (11) BCLR 1404 (CC); 2022 (6) SA 1 (CC) (14 March 2022)
The Constitutional Court held that the respondent was not eligible for membership of the Municipal Employees Pension Fund under its rules, as she was employed for a limited period. Her purported admission was ultra vires and void. The Court interpreted section 1(d) of the Pension Funds Act to allow any person with an interest in a complaint to lodge a grievance with the Adjudicator, including those wrongly admitted to membership. The Adjudicator's jurisdiction was confirmed, as the respondent's grievance related to the administration of the Fund and alleged ultra vires conduct. The requiremen…
Source excerpt
Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Another v Mongwaketse (969/2019) [2020] ZASCA 181; [2021] 1 All SA 772 (SCA) (23 December 2020)
The majority held that the respondent was not qualified to be a member of the Municipal Employees Pension Fund under its rules, rendering her membership contract void ab initio. Consequently, the fund was not entitled to retain contributions made by her, and she was entitled to recover all amounts paid, whether characterised as member or employer contributions, under the condictio indebiti. The Adjudicator had jurisdiction to determine the complaint, as it related to maladministration and decisions taken in excess of the fund's powers. The fund's arguments based on estoppel, waiver, and presc…
Source excerpt
Framatome v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited (43535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 233 (30 September 2020)
The High Court refused to enforce an adjudicator’s decision under an NEC3 construction contract, finding the adjudicator in decision 11 had exceeded his jurisdiction.
Municipal Employees' Pension Fund and Another v Mudau (A540/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 538 (22 June 2020)
Full court appeal about a pension fund rule amendment and whether the Adjudicator could apply it retrospectively to reduce a member’s withdrawal benefit.
Explore more
