The respondents were former SABC employees who left employment between 1993 and 2000 and were paid the full actuarial value of their pensions. They remained members of the SABC medical scheme with the SABC paying a 60% subsidy of their monthly medical scheme contributions. In 2001, the SABC gave notice to withdraw these subsidies, claiming respondents were not retirees and the subsidies were unauthorized. The respondents successfully challenged this in the High Court (Blieden J), who ordered reinstatement of the subsidies. The SABC appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which upheld the order on the basis that the SABC was estopped from denying the authority of its officials who had agreed the respondents could be treated as retirees entitled to the subsidies. Nearly a year after the SCA judgment, the SABC sent letters to respondents stating it would phase out subsidies over five years at 20% per annum, claiming it had the right to do so and was treating them the same as 'bona fide pensioners'. The respondents launched fresh proceedings seeking an interdict to prevent the phasing out of subsidies.
The appeal was dismissed with costs including the costs of two counsel. The interdict granted by Mogagabe AJ restraining the SABC from phasing out or reducing the subsidies was upheld.
A litigant bound by a continuing mandamus cannot escape those obligations merely by alleging that it has chosen to end them. A court order remains effective until the rights upon which it was founded lawfully come to an end. Where a party seeks to terminate rights that are the subject of a court order, it must establish that the termination was lawful. A mere assertion of termination, without establishing the lawfulness of that termination, is insufficient to relieve a party of the continuing obligations imposed by a court order.
The court noted that it was asked by respondents' counsel to rule that Blieden J's finding that the respondents' contracts entitled them to the subsidies was res judicata between the parties. The court declined to do so, stating: 'I do not think we are called upon to stray beyond what is properly required for our decision in this appeal.' This suggests the court's preference for deciding only what is necessary for the matter at hand and not making pronouncements on issues not strictly required for the determination of the appeal.
This case is significant for establishing important principles regarding the enforcement and binding nature of court orders in South African law. It confirms that parties cannot unilaterally escape continuing court orders (mandamus) by simply deciding to terminate compliance. The judgment reinforces the principle that court orders remain effective until the legal rights upon which they are founded are lawfully terminated, and that a party seeking to escape such obligations must establish that any termination was lawful. The case also demonstrates the courts' commitment to enforcing their orders and preventing parties from circumventing judgments through unilateral actions. It is particularly relevant in employment law contexts where ongoing obligations have been imposed by court order.