Pension fund administrators respond to former employee's claims.
Image: AI Generate
Akani Retirement Fund Administrators and the Municipal Employees Pension Fund (MEPF) have dismissed claims that pension funds belonging to a former municipal employee, M Mahlangu, are missing.
This comes after IOL published an article about Mahlangu's 'missing' R1.6 million pension claim which was dismissed by the Financial Service Tribunal over an eight-year delay.
In a joint statement, Akani and the MEPF insisted that all benefits due to Mahlangu were properly calculated and paid out in full following his resignation.
According to the statement, Mahlangu was employed by the Govan Mbeki Local Municipality and resigned from his position in February 2017. At the time, he was a member of the Defined Benefit category of the MEPF.
The fund clarified that Mahlangu left his employment through resignation and not retirement.
"A resignation benefit is taxable at a prescribed bracket rate unlike when a benefit is transferred to either a preservation or any other approved scheme, it would not be taxed," read the statement.
The MEPF explained that Mahlangu’s resignation benefit was calculated in line with Section 37(1) of the fund’s rules. From this amount, certain deductions were legally required before the final payout could be made.
These included tax deductions in accordance with applicable legislation; and settlement of an outstanding housing loan which had to be settled with a financial institution before his withdrawal benefit could be paid out.
After these deductions, MEPF said the remaining balance was over R626,000 and it was paid directly to Mahlangu.
"No monies are due and owed to Mr. M Mahlangu. All benefits due to him were paid in full and there are no outstanding or “missing” pension funds," the statement concluded.
In a ruling made by the tribunal it was mentioned that when Mahlangu withdrew from the fund in February 2017, his pension benefit amounted to R2.28 million.
The ruling further added that he withdrew over R626,000 and instructed the fund to transfer the remaining R1,644,856 to the Stanlib Preservation Fund under a Section 14 transfer.
It was said that for years, Mahlangu believed the transfer had been completed. 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.
The matter was referred to the pension fund 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.
His application for reconsideration at the tribunal was unsuccessful after it was found that the issue could have been resolved earlier if Mahlangu had acted 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.