De Nysschen v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (864/2022) [2023] ZASCA 147 (09 November 2023)

Petronella De Nysschen, the appellant, was employed by the North West Province Department of Education from January 15, 1979, until her dismissal on June 26, 2013, due to charges of misconduct. As a public sector employee, she was a member of the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF). Upon her dismissal, her membership in the GEPF ceased, and she received a net pension benefit payout of R5,194,418.72.

De Nysschen successfully challenged her dismissal through arbitration at the General Public Service Sectoral Bargaining Council, which found her dismissal both substantively and procedurally unfair. She was ordered to be reinstated without loss of benefits. A Deed of Settlement was concluded between De Nysschen and the Department on May 27, 2015, which included a clause for the reinstatement of her pensionable service and benefits to the value she would have been entitled to had she not been dismissed.

Following the settlement, the Department requested a calculation from the GEPF for the amount needed to reinstate De Nysschen's pensionable service. The Department paid the GEPF R7,016,767.76, which included income tax and interest. De Nysschen continued working until her retirement on April 1, 2020. However, the Department refused to process her pension withdrawal documents, claiming she needed to reimburse the Department for the pension benefit she received upon her initial dismissal.

De Nysschen approached the High Court seeking an order for the Department to process her pension withdrawal documents. The High Court granted the order but also included an order for De Nysschen to repay the Department R5,194,418.72, which was to be deducted from her pension benefits. This additional order was not sought by any party, and De Nysschen appealed against this part of the judgment.

The primary legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in this case was the competency of an order granted by the North West Division of the High Court, which required the appellant, Petronella De Nysschen, to repay an amount of R5,194,418.72 to the Department of Education. This order was made despite the fact that such relief had not been sought by any of the parties involved in the case.

The core legal principle underlying the decision, or the ratio decidendi, is that a court may not grant relief that has not been sought by the parties in their pleadings. The court's authority is confined to the issues that the parties have chosen to put into dispute through their pleadings, and it is not the role of the court to resolve matters outside of those parameters. This principle ensures that the legal process is fair, that parties are aware of the claims against them, and that they have the opportunity to respond to those claims. The court's decision to set aside the unsolicited order for repayment by the appellant is a direct application of this principle.

The Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the rules of civil procedure and the limits of judicial intervention in disputes before the court. It reinforces the notion that the judicial system operates within a framework of procedural fairness, where parties are entitled to have their legal disputes resolved based on the issues they have chosen to litigate.

The case underscores the importance of clarity and specificity in pleadings. Parties will be reminded that they must explicitly state the relief they are seeking and cannot expect the court to grant orders beyond those claims.