South Africa Case Law

SAMWU National Provident Fund v Ntabankulu Local Municipality and Others (457/2015)

SAMWU National Provident Fund v Ntabankulu Local Municipality and Others (457/2015) [2018] ZAECMHC 43 (14 August 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

457/2015

Judge

Hartle

The court found that Rule 3.2.1 of the applicant's Rules prohibits employees from withdrawing their membership from the fund while they remain in service of the municipality. Transfers of membership to another fund are not permitted unless service is terminated. The applicant is entitled to enforce statutory and rule-based obligations against the municipality for payment of contributions and provision of information for the relevant period. The constitutional challenge to Rule 3.2.1 fails due to lack of standing by the second and third respondents, who did not adequately represent the employe…

Source excerpt

• Pension Fund Regulation
• Statutory Compliance
• Freedom Of Association
• Collective Agreements
• Constitutional Review
• Arrear Contributions

Hunter v Financial Services Board and Others (3725/16)

Hunter v Financial Services Board and Others (3725/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1208 (14 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3725/16

Judge

HF Jacobs

The applicant failed to establish the necessary standing in law to claim the relief sought, either under the original or amended notice of motion. The court found that the applicant did not have a direct and substantial interest sufficient to justify judicial intervention compelling the FSB and the Minister to act in the manner she prescribed. The constitutional and statutory provisions relied upon did not confer enforceable rights in this context. The application for amendment was refused due to genuine disputes of fact, lateness, and lack of standing. The joinder of the third and fourth res…

Source excerpt

• Standing To Seek Relief
• Public Interest Litigation
• Pension Fund Regulation
• Judicial Review
• Costs Award
• Protected Disclosures

City of Cape Town Municipality v South African Local Authority Pension Fund and Another (25945/11)

City of Cape Town Municipality v South African Local Authority Pension Fund and Another (25945/11) [2012] ZAWCHC 235; [2013] 2 All SA 177 (WCC) (13 December 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

25945/11

Judge

Griesel

The court held that section 30H(2) of the Pension Funds Act precluded the Adjudicator from investigating the City's complaint because the subject matter was already before the High Court, regardless of which party initiated the proceedings. The City's challenge to the Fund's rule amendment and the Registrar's approval was dismissed due to an inordinate and unexplained delay in instituting review proceedings, which could not be condoned under PAJA. The court found that the City failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay and that granting relief would prejudice the Fund a…

Source excerpt

• Pension Fund Regulation
• Judicial Review Delay
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Forum Shopping
• Administrative Fairness
• Rule Amendment Procedure

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (6010/2008)

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality (6010/2008) [2010] ZAKZPHC 63 (23 September 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

6010/2008

Judge

Swain

The court dismissed a pension fund’s claim for an adjusted contribution after a member left service, holding the regulations did not permit a lump-sum recovery.

• Statutory Interpretation
• Pension Fund Regulation
• Contractual Employment
• Casus Omissus
• Administrative Discretion
• Statutory-interpretation

Nichol and Another v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others (467/2004)

Nichol and Another v Registrar of Pension Funds and Others (467/2004) [2005] ZASCA 97; 2008 (1) SA 383 (SCA) ; [2006] 1 All SA 589 (C) (29 September 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

467/2004

Judges

Mpati, Navsa, Van Heerden, Maya, Cachalia

The court held that Nichol had to exhaust the FSB Appeal Board remedy before judicial review. No exceptional circumstances justified exemption under PAJA.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Exhaustion Of Internal Remedies
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Judicial Review
• Pension Fund Regulation
• Administrative-law

Pepcor Retirement Fund and Another v Financial Services Board and Another (198/2002)

Pepcor Retirement Fund and Another v Financial Services Board and Another (198/2002) [2003] ZASCA 56; [2003] 3 All SA 21 (SCA); 2003 (6) SA 38 (SCA) (30 May 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

198/2002

Judges

Vivier, Marais, Navsa, Cloete, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that both the Registrar of Pension Funds and the Financial Services Board have locus standi to seek judicial review of certificates and transfers issued under section 14(1) of the Pension Funds Act, as their functions are performed in the public interest and are subject to statutory oversight. The Registrar is specifically empowered to compel compliance with the Act and to seek repayment of unlawfully transferred funds, while the Financial Services Board may supervise and seek review but cannot itself recover such funds. The court further recognised that a mat…

Source excerpt

• Locus Standi
• Material Mistake Of Fact
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Pension Fund Regulation
• Condictio
• Ultra Vires