University of Venda ex-employee wins fresh investigation into R5.3 million pension fund exclusion.
Image: Facebook/University of Venda
The Financial Services Tribunal has set aside a decision by the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) in a dispute involving a former University of Venda employee who claims he was unfairly excluded from a multimillion-rand pension reserve distribution, sending the matter back for further investigation.
The ruling stems from an application brought by Calvin Muloiwa, who sought reconsideration of a July 2025 determination that dismissed his complaint about the distribution of surplus reserves from the Univen Provident Fund.
At the heart of the dispute is a decision by the fund’s board to distribute 50% of its excess reserve, amounting to R5.3 million, to qualifying members. Calvin argued that he was originally included among the beneficiaries before being excluded after he left employment at the University of Venda in late 2023.
Muloiwa had worked at the university since 1992 and was a member of the provident fund as well as a trustee on the fund’s board. After his dismissal in November 2023, he withdrew from the fund and received a withdrawal benefit of just over R630,000 in January 2024.
According to the tribunal record, the fund’s actuary recommended in 2022 that half of the reserve be distributed to members. Minutes from a board meeting in May 2022 show trustees selected the 50% distribution option and agreed that individual member calculations be finalised by the principal officer.
Muloiwa told the adjudicator he was included in early calculations and that the distribution formula was approved in 2022. However, a later board resolution signed in April 2024 restricted the payout to members still actively contributing as of 1 April 2024. Because Muloiwa had already left the fund, he was excluded from the final distribution.
He subsequently complained to the PFA, arguing that his name had been removed from the benefit list without explanation and that he had not been notified of the board meeting where the final resolution was taken. He also questioned whether the meeting had been properly convened under the fund’s rules.
The fund maintained that the distribution applied only to active contributing members as of April 2024 and that it had implemented the board’s directive accordingly. The adjudicator accepted that argument, finding the board had exercised its discretion reasonably and dismissing Muloiwa's complaint.
However, during an appeal, the tribunal found significant gaps in that reasoning. The panel said the adjudicator had focused on withdrawal-benefit rules rather than the legal framework governing surplus and reserve apportionment under the Pension Funds Act.
The tribunal emphasised that once surplus is apportioned, members and former members may acquire rights to it. It also pointed out that the law allows surplus to be used, where reasonable and equitable, to improve benefits for former members who left after the surplus apportionment date.
The tribunal criticised the adjudicator for failing to investigate key issues, including whether the board properly considered the relevant statutory provisions, why nearly two years passed between the initial decision to distribute the surplus and the final resolution, what was decided at a December 2022 meeting, and whether the February 2024 board meeting was validly convened.
The panel noted that the fund did not provide minutes of the February 2024 meeting despite being asked to do so and said it was the fund’s responsibility to supply information about its own governance processes once the issue was raised.
In its order, the tribunal set aside the adjudicator’s determination and sent the matter back for fresh consideration and proper investigation.
The case now returns to the PFA who must re-examine the dispute and determine whether Muloiwa was lawfully excluded from the surplus distribution.
IOL News