A Mpumalanga man's claim to retrieve his R1.6 million pension has been dismissed as he filed his complaint too late.
Image: File
A Mpumalanga former municipal worker who tried to make a two-pot withdrawal last year found that his R1.6 million pension had not been transferred to a preservation fund years ago as he instructed and his claim to the funds had expired.
M Mahlangu turned to the Pension Funds Adjudicator and lodged a complaint. But the adjudicator declined to investigate his complaint against the Municipal Employees Pension Fund and its administrator, Akani Retirement Fund Administrators.
He then approached the Financial Services Tribunal but it found that it had been filed too late.
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.
He said he believed that the transfer was done. But then in April last year when he attempted to make a withdrawal in terms of the two-pot withdrawal system, he discovered that no transfer had taken place.
Upon querying the matter, Akani Retirement Fund Administrators informed him that 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.
For more stories from The Mercury, click the link THE MERCURY