South African Broadcasting Corporation Ltd v Coop and Others

The respondents were former employees of the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) who left its employ between 1993 and 2000 after being paid the full actuarial value of their pensions. Despite this, they continued to receive certain post‑employment benefits, including a 60% subsidy on medical scheme contributions, similar to benefits received by ‘bona fide pensioners’. In 2001 the SABC attempted to withdraw these subsidies, arguing that the respondents were not retirees under its pension fund rules. Litigation followed, culminating in a High Court order (confirmed by the SCA in 2006) requiring the SABC to reinstate the subsidies. In 2007 the SABC again sought to reduce and phase out the subsidies, claiming it was entitled to do so on reasonable notice and in line with its treatment of bona fide pensioners. The respondents approached the High Court for an interdict to enforce the earlier order, which was granted, leading to the present appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The interdict restraining the SABC from reducing or phasing out the respondents’ subsidies remained in force.

The case affirms the binding nature of continuing court orders in South African law and clarifies that a party subject to such an order cannot unilaterally evade compliance through subsequent policy decisions. It underscores the principle that court orders remain effective until set aside or until the legal rights underpinning them lawfully terminate.