This blog was co-authored by: Bwanika Lwanga, Candidate Attorney
In June 2022, the High Court held that a claim by a provident fund for interest on late-paid contributions had prescribed.
The parties signed an acknowledgement of debt on 26 November 2013 for a total of R12 488 219. 04 owed by an employer to the
On 23 February 2022, the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) reinforced that an employee who does not have a “complaint” as provided for, in section 30A of the Pension Funds Act,1956 (PFA) cannot have recourse under the PFA.
The fact of the case are:
On 21 September 2021, the Financial Services Tribunal (“Tribunal”) in Royal Bafokeng Platinum Limited & Others v Pension Funds Adjudicator & Others, considered what constitutes “misconduct” as contemplated in section 37D of the Pension Funds Act, 1956 (“PFA”) and in which instances a member’s benefit may be reduced. In this case, the holding over
The Pension Funds Act, 1956 (“PFA”) is the primary legislation regulating retirement funds. Section 30A of the PFA provides that any person who has a complaint as defined in section 1 “may lodge a written complaint with the retirement fund for consideration by the board, which must be properly considered and responded
A pension fund failed in its application for reconsideration of the Pension Fund Adjudicator’s (PFA) decision to refer the matter back to the fund for reconsideration because, according to the Financial Services Tribunal the fund is not a ‘person aggrieved’ as required by section 230 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act of 2017.
The fund
In Nicolaas Albertus Van Rhyn and Another v The Pension Funds Adjudicator and Others, the applicants brought an application for review and remittal back for reconsideration of a determination by the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA). Providing the High court of South Africa (Court) with an opportunity to consider the final and binding nature of
In February 2021, the Financial Services Tribunal (“FST”) in L.S Ngqengelele v Afrisam South Africa (Pty) Ltd considered the question of when a fund may withhold and deduct money from a member’s benefit in accordance with section 37D(1)(b)(ii) of the Pension Funds Act (“PFA”).
Section 37D(1)(b)(ii) of the PFA, allows a fund to deduct from
The principles of equity, despite the equitable jurisdiction of the Pension Funds Adjudicator, cannot override the provisions of the Pension Funds Act (PFA) by permitting a fund to act in contravention of the PFA. The Financial Services Tribunal (Tribunal) has reaffirmed this position.
The applicant had been a municipal councillor since 5 August 2016 but
The Pretoria High Court has refused to extend the ‘bloedige hand’ principle in instances where the beneficiary of a death benefit was the child of the deceased’s killer. The ‘bloedige hand’ principle holds that no person who unlawfully causes the death of another may inherit from the deceased.
The deceased and his wife were killed
If an employer requests that provident fund benefits be withheld from an employee due to misconduct, the trustees of the fund must still independently exercise their discretion to satisfy themselves that a sufficient case against the employee has been established, in order to withhold the benefit.
The Financial Services Tribunal has again considered the withholding