Rössing's appeal outcome expected Friday
The Supreme Court will give its ruling on whether the High Court misdirected itself in holding that the decision relating to the distribution of the N$454 million surplus must be reviewed, on Friday.
The High Court ruling relates to the distribution of a surplus in mine's pension fund.
Deputy Chief Justice Petrus Damaseb, shortly after the start of the proceedings announced that it is in the public interest that the entire judgement is read and that the public is entitled to come and listen.
It will further rule whether the court misdirected itself that the trustees of the fund, instead of themselves taking the decision as to the manner of distribution of the surplus, impermissibly acted on the direction of the employer.
The Supreme Court also will decide whether the allocation to the employer of a share of the surplus in the pension fund was in conflict with the Pension Fund Act.
The issue to be decided is also whether the challenge to the allocation of the surplus was brought within a reasonable time.
The Rössing Pension Fund is a 'defined benefit fund' as opposed to a 'defined contribution fund' and was established to provide retirement, death as well as disability benefits to its members employed by the employer, Rössing.
In March 2009 the fund declared a surplus of N$367 million and by 1 April 2012 the surplus had grown to N$454 million.
Subsequent to the declaration of the surplus, the trustees of the fund recommended that the surplus be distributed equally - 33.33% - to active pension members including pensioners, the employer and former members.
Acting in terms of the Pension Fund rules, the board of directors of the Rössing Uranium (Ltd) reversed the decision of the trustees and approved a distribution of 15% to the former members through a cash distribution, 33% to be distributed to the company, through a three year contribution holiday and 52% to the active members through a three year contribution holiday and a once-off defined contribution to their pension account.
The former members of the fund, disgruntled by the decision launched an application to review and set aside the decision of the board. Rössing then opposed the application on the grounds that the challenge was not brought within a reasonable time.
However the High Court upheld the challenge to the manner of distribution of the surplus and set aside it on the grounds that in terms of the Pension Fund rules, only the trustees have the sole responsibility for the management of the Fund and to decide how surplus funds are to be allocated and distributed.
The High Court held that the decision of the board was in contravention of the Pension Fund Act in that the decision amounted to usurping the powers of the trustees.
The court rejected the objection that the challenge was not brought within reasonable time.
Rössing Uranium has appealed against the judgement .
FRED GOEIEMAN
The High Court ruling relates to the distribution of a surplus in mine's pension fund.
Deputy Chief Justice Petrus Damaseb, shortly after the start of the proceedings announced that it is in the public interest that the entire judgement is read and that the public is entitled to come and listen.
It will further rule whether the court misdirected itself that the trustees of the fund, instead of themselves taking the decision as to the manner of distribution of the surplus, impermissibly acted on the direction of the employer.
The Supreme Court also will decide whether the allocation to the employer of a share of the surplus in the pension fund was in conflict with the Pension Fund Act.
The issue to be decided is also whether the challenge to the allocation of the surplus was brought within a reasonable time.
The Rössing Pension Fund is a 'defined benefit fund' as opposed to a 'defined contribution fund' and was established to provide retirement, death as well as disability benefits to its members employed by the employer, Rössing.
In March 2009 the fund declared a surplus of N$367 million and by 1 April 2012 the surplus had grown to N$454 million.
Subsequent to the declaration of the surplus, the trustees of the fund recommended that the surplus be distributed equally - 33.33% - to active pension members including pensioners, the employer and former members.
Acting in terms of the Pension Fund rules, the board of directors of the Rössing Uranium (Ltd) reversed the decision of the trustees and approved a distribution of 15% to the former members through a cash distribution, 33% to be distributed to the company, through a three year contribution holiday and 52% to the active members through a three year contribution holiday and a once-off defined contribution to their pension account.
The former members of the fund, disgruntled by the decision launched an application to review and set aside the decision of the board. Rössing then opposed the application on the grounds that the challenge was not brought within a reasonable time.
However the High Court upheld the challenge to the manner of distribution of the surplus and set aside it on the grounds that in terms of the Pension Fund rules, only the trustees have the sole responsibility for the management of the Fund and to decide how surplus funds are to be allocated and distributed.
The High Court held that the decision of the board was in contravention of the Pension Fund Act in that the decision amounted to usurping the powers of the trustees.
The court rejected the objection that the challenge was not brought within reasonable time.
Rössing Uranium has appealed against the judgement .
FRED GOEIEMAN
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article