Key Takeaways
- • The Financial Services Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration application of 84-year-old Mamzwakazi Ntloyile, upholding the Pension Funds Adjudicator's finding that her complaint against the Municipal Employees Pension Fund was time-barred.
- • Ntloyile lodged her complaint on October 8, 2025, roughly ten years after the Fund stopped her spousal pension payments in May 2015, far beyond the three-year limit under the Pension Funds Act.
- • The Fund recovered its position on R61,659.32 in payments made to Ntloyile between July 2010 and May 2015 after her husband's death, which it characterised as made in error.
- • The tribunal said it had no discretion to condone the late filing and did not rule on whether she was entitled to a spousal pension under the Fund's rules.
Summary
The Financial Services Tribunal has dismissed an application by 84-year-old Mamzwakazi Ntloyile to force the Municipal Employees Pension Fund to investigate her claim for a spousal pension, ruling that her complaint was lodged almost ten years too late. The tribunal upheld the Pension Funds Adjudicator's refusal to investigate, finding the complaint related to the cessation of pension payments in 2015 and fell outside the three-year limit set by the Pension Funds Act.
According to the ruling, Ntloyile's husband joined the Fund in July 1977 through his employment with the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, retired in March 1990 and continued receiving a monthly pension until his death on June 26, 2010. The Fund was not notified of his death, and Ntloyile continued receiving payments until the Fund stopped them in May 2015. The Fund said she had received R61,659.32 between July 2010 and May 2015, arguing the payments were made in error because they were intended for the deceased pensioner. Ntloyile contends she qualifies for a spousal pension, which under the Fund's rules equals 50% of the pension the deceased received immediately before death. The Fund disputes this, arguing she was not married to the pensioner when he retired.
Ntloyile lodged her complaint with the Adjudicator on October 8, 2025. The Adjudicator closed it on May 22, 2026, finding it time-barred and outside his jurisdiction, noting she knew of the cessation of payments in May 2015 and should have complained by May 2018. In her reconsideration bid, she argued that prescription should only have begun on September 9, 2024, when her lawyers contacted the Fund's administrator, Akani, and that she had only then discovered which fund administered her husband's benefits. She also cited her age, lack of education and unfamiliarity with the Prescription Act.
The tribunal rejected these arguments. It noted she had approached the Fund's offices in June 2015 about the discontinued payments and could have pursued a complaint then, and that she knew the identities of both the employer and the fund. It found she had not shown that material facts were concealed or could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, and rejected her reliance on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. While acknowledging sympathy for her position, the tribunal said neither the Adjudicator nor the tribunal could go beyond statutory powers, and the legislation provides no discretion to condone non-compliance with the three-year limit. The tribunal did not determine the merits of her spousal pension claim.
According to the ruling, Ntloyile's husband joined the Fund in July 1977 through his employment with the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, retired in March 1990 and continued receiving a monthly pension until his death on June 26, 2010. The Fund was not notified of his death, and Ntloyile continued receiving payments until the Fund stopped them in May 2015. The Fund said she had received R61,659.32 between July 2010 and May 2015, arguing the payments were made in error because they were intended for the deceased pensioner. Ntloyile contends she qualifies for a spousal pension, which under the Fund's rules equals 50% of the pension the deceased received immediately before death. The Fund disputes this, arguing she was not married to the pensioner when he retired.
Ntloyile lodged her complaint with the Adjudicator on October 8, 2025. The Adjudicator closed it on May 22, 2026, finding it time-barred and outside his jurisdiction, noting she knew of the cessation of payments in May 2015 and should have complained by May 2018. In her reconsideration bid, she argued that prescription should only have begun on September 9, 2024, when her lawyers contacted the Fund's administrator, Akani, and that she had only then discovered which fund administered her husband's benefits. She also cited her age, lack of education and unfamiliarity with the Prescription Act.
The tribunal rejected these arguments. It noted she had approached the Fund's offices in June 2015 about the discontinued payments and could have pursued a complaint then, and that she knew the identities of both the employer and the fund. It found she had not shown that material facts were concealed or could not reasonably have been discovered earlier, and rejected her reliance on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act. While acknowledging sympathy for her position, the tribunal said neither the Adjudicator nor the tribunal could go beyond statutory powers, and the legislation provides no discretion to condone non-compliance with the three-year limit. The tribunal did not determine the merits of her spousal pension claim.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.