Miranda Rasehala, Legal Advisor, FNB South Africa

On 29 September 2026, the Financial Services Tribunal dismissed an application to reconsider the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s decision in Maako v Alexander Forbes Retirement Fund Core and Others (PFA61/2026). Filed almost a year late, the application was not condoned. The decision highlights important time limits.

Background

Mr Maako was a fund member through two staffing employers between 2017 and 2020. His withdrawal benefits were paid in November 2020. In 2024 the fund found a remaining benefit and paid it to him.

He complained that his employers had underpaid contributions, that he had not received R7 174.25, and that he had not signed the withdrawal claim form. He also raised tax, workplace injury and salary insurance issues. The Adjudicator dismissed the complaint on 30 May 2025.

The Tribunal

The Late Application

A person unhappy with an Adjudicator’s decision has 60 days to ask the Tribunal to reconsider it. The Tribunal can allow more time if there is good reason. Mr Maako said he only learnt about the Tribunal when he saw its work on television.

The Tribunal rejected this explanation. The email accompanying the decision set out his right to approach the Tribunal, the deadline and its contact details. He did not deny receiving it and left most of the delay unexplained. Applying the Constitutional Court decision of Van Wyk v Unitas Hospital, the Tribunal held that prospects of success cannot make up for a long, unexplained delay.

Prospects of success

The Tribunal found that none of his grounds had reasonable prospects of success.

Time limit

Section 30I of the Pension Funds Act bars the Adjudicator from investigating events more than 3 years old. Time runs from when the member knew, or reasonably could have known, the relevant facts. In 2020 Mr Maako knew what had been deducted and paid; he did not need to know the exact shortfall. The 2024 payment did not explain why he had not enquired in 2020.

Disputed payment

The fund produced a payment letter, a record of payment to a bank account in his name, and a claim form showing that account number. He did not produce a bank statement. Simply denying receipt was not enough.

Other Issues

The tax, injury and salary insurance issues did not fall within the definition of a “complaint”. They belonged with SARS, the Compensation Fund and the National Financial Ombud Scheme respectively.

Outcome

Condonation was refused and the application dismissed, with no costs order. Mr Maako had also asked the Tribunal to order direct payment and direct the Adjudicator to refer the alleged forgery to the police. The Tribunal found the forgery unproved and could not order direct payment. It may dismiss an application or, if the Adjudicator’s decision cannot stand, set it aside and remit the matter. Costs are awarded only in exceptional circumstances, and none were shown.

Implications

Members should read all correspondence accompanying a decision and act promptly. If a benefit appears too low, they should query it when reviewing a benefit statement or when it is paid.

Funds and administrators should maintain reliable records. The fund’s proof of payment and the claim form account details carried weight, while Mr Maako produced no bank statement showing non-receipt.

Employers should note that the decision does not excuse the non-payment of contributions. It confirms only that this complaint was lodged too late for the Adjudicator to consider it.

ENDS