Pensioner’s R115,800 claim dismissed due to 15-year delay.
Image: File
The Financial Services Tribunal has dismissed an application by a pensioner seeking payment of R115,800 in alleged unpaid pension benefits, ruling that the complaint was lodged far too late.
The tribunal rejected an application by Malose Phineas Manyama to overturn a ruling by the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA), which had found his complaint to be time-barred.
Manyama, who was employed by Fleet Africa (Pty) Ltd from September 1974, left the company in July 2009. He submitted a withdrawal claim form in September 2009 to claim his benefit from the Auto Workers Provident Fund.
He later alleged that his withdrawal benefit of R115,800.72 was never paid to him. According to Manyama, the fund had paid the money into the wrong bank account and incorrectly reflected the payee as “Corporate Selection Umbrella Retirement Fund” in a March 2025 letter. He argued that the funds were either misdirected or intentionally misrepresented.
The fund, however, produced system records and a remittance advice showing that the amount was paid via electronic funds transfer into Manyama’s bank account on 24 March 2010. It maintained that the incorrect reference in the 2025 letter was merely a typographical error, which was later corrected. The fund further stated that the inclusion of a zero before his account number did not affect the validity of the payment.
Manyama acknowledged receiving a separate payment of over R76,800 in March 2025, but insisted that the earlier withdrawal benefit had never reached him.
After lodging a complaint, Manyama was informed by the PFA in June 2025 that the office lacked jurisdiction to investigate the matter because it was time-barred under Section 30I of the Pension Funds Act. The provision prevents the adjudicator from investigating complaints relating to acts or omissions that occurred more than three years before the complaint was submitted.
The adjudicator found that Manyama had been aware as far back as September 2009 that a benefit was due to him yet, he only made enquiries about the alleged non-payment in October 2024 — some 15 years later.
Manyama then approached the tribunal in October 2025, seeking reconsideration of the adjudicator’s ruling. His application was filed out of time, but the tribunal condoned the late filing after he explained that, as a pensioner, he had struggled to raise funds to brief counsel.
Despite granting condonation, the tribunal dismissed the reconsideration application.
In its ruling, the tribunal emphasised that the three-year time limit in Section 30I is a jurisdictional requirement, not a defence that must be raised by the fund. It found that the adjudicator was legally obliged to assess jurisdiction at the outset.
The tribunal noted that Manyama had signed and submitted his withdrawal claim form in September 2009 and therefore had full knowledge that payment was due. His failure to act within three years meant that the jurisdictional window closed permanently in March 2013.
“Ultimately, the applicant has provided no reasonable explanation as to why it took him 15 years to lodge a complaint for the non-payment of his benefit,” said the tribunal.
As a result, the application for reconsideration was dismissed.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.