Former municipal worker's R1.6 million pension claim dismissed due to delay.
Image: AI Generated
The Financial Services Tribunal has dismissed an application by a former municipal employee seeking to revive a pension complaint involving more than R1.6 million, ruling that the matter was filed too late to be investigated.
M Mahlangu asked the tribunal to reconsider an earlier decision by the Pension Funds Adjudicator, who had declined to investigate his complaint against the Municipal Employees Pension Fund and its administrator, Akani Retirement Fund Administrators.
Mahlangu was a member of the Municipal Employees Pension Fund while working for the Govan Mbeki Local Municipality. When he withdrew from the fund in February 2017, his pension benefit amounted to R2.28 million.
He withdrew R626,981 at the time and instructed the fund to transfer the remaining R1,644,856 to the Stanlib Preservation Fund under a Section 14 transfer.
For years, Mahlangu believed the transfer had been completed. He said he only discovered in April 2025 that the funds had not been moved when he tried to make use of South Africa’s new two-pot retirement system.
After contacting Akani Retirement Fund Administrators, he was told his claim had expired.
He referred the matter to the adjudicator where it was confirmed that Mahlangu made a withdrawal and received a payment in 2017 but argued that his complaint — lodged with the Adjudicator in July 2025 — came eight years after the events in question. By law, Mahlangu should have brought the matter before August 2020.
Under the Pension Funds Act, the adjudicator cannot investigate complaints relating to events that occurred more than three years before the complaint is submitted.
The adjudicator therefore ruled in September 2025 that the complaint was time-barred and fell outside its jurisdiction.
In his reconsideration application, Mahlangu argued that the three-year period should only start when he became aware in 2025 that the transfer had not taken place. He also criticised the fund’s record-keeping.
However, the tribunal found that he could have discovered the issue earlier with reasonable diligence. It was held that he knew the relevant parties and could have requested benefit statements within the prescribed period.
The tribunal concluded that his belief that the transfer had been executed was not enough to interrupt prescription.
“The determination of the adjudicator cannot be faulted,” the tribunal said, adding that there was no basis to interfere with the earlier decision.
The tribunal ultimately dismissed Mahlangu’s application for reconsideration.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.