NATIONAL RAILWAYS OF ZIMBABWE CONTRIBUTORY PENSION FUND v EDY 1988 (2) ZLR 157 (SC)

Flynote

Pensions and compensation — contributions to pension fund — refund of on discharge — whether a "benefit payable from a fund" — Pension and Provident Fund Regulations 1976 — s 38(2).

Statutes — interpretation of — principles — words — meaning of — word in one part of statute bearing same meaning in another part.

Headnote

The respondent was a judgment creditor who had obtained a judgment against a person who had been an employee of the National Railways of Zimbabwe. The judgment debtor had, like other permanent staff members, made compulsory contributions from his salary to the Railways Contributory Pension Fund. His employment was terminated following a conviction for theft. The respondent applied for a garnishee order directing the Fund to pay to him the pension fund contributions refundable to the judgment creditor. The fund resisted payment on the ground that the refundable money was a "benefit" and was therefore, by virtue of s 38(2) of the Pension and Provident Fund Regulations RGN 578 of 1976, not liable to judicial attachment. The High Court granted the application.

On appeal, the sole issue was whether a refund of pension contributions was a "benefit", the word itself not being defined in the Regulations or in the enabling Act. It was argued on behalf of the respondent that on the ordinary meaning of the word, and because what the contributor received was what was his all along, the refund of contributions did not constitute a benefit.

Held, that the relationship between the contributor and the pension fund stood on an entirely different footing than that between, say, a bank and its clients. When the contributor paid his money (a matter in which he had no choice) the money became the property of the Fund, to be used as the fund deemed fit, until the occurrence of contingencies such as retirement, resignation or discharge. South African judicial authorities dealing with similar subject-matter had held that refunds of pension contributions were benefits, and there was no warrant for disregarding those decisions. Held, further, that the word "benefit", as used in s 18(4) of the Regulations could only refer to the quantum of contributions refundable to a member on resignation. The word also appears in ss 18(2)(d), 38(2) and 39(1), from which it was clear that a refund of contributions is a "benefit". Having regard to the presumption that a word bearing a particular meaning in a particular part of an enactment will bear the same meaning in other parts unless there are clear indications to the contrary, it was clear that Parliament, in empowering the Minister to make regulations dealing with the matters referred to in s 36 of the Act, intended the word "benefits" used therein to have the same specialized meaning as in s 18(4).