dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:22:58Z | |
dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:22:58Z | |
dc.date.created | 2016-07-25 | en |
dc.identifier.citation | [2017] ZACC 1 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 2017 (6) BCLR 750 (CC) | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3831 | |
dc.title | Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Germiston Municipal Retirement Fund | en |
dc.title.alternative | CCT226/15 | en |
dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT226/15 | en |
dc.contributor.judge | Nkabinde ADCJ (majority) | |
dc.contributor.judge | Jafta J (minority) | |
dc.date.judgment | 17 January 2017 | |
dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3831/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28296%20Kb%29-26084.pdf?sequence=16&isAllowed=y | |
dc.concourt.synopsis | Pension fund rule — Jurisdiction — Reconsideration of interpretation of the pension fund rule based on “new” evidence — Can a municipality’s constitutional obligations override its liability in terms of the rule — Enforcement of the rule — Whether it offends public policy — Whether a Pension Fund Board has a duty of good faith toward the Municipality (employer) — No rigid adherence to the requirements of res iudicata |