Mohapi v De Beers Pension Fund and Another

Mr Mervyn Mohapi was employed by the De Beers Pension Fund from 1991 to 2000 and was a member of the fund. In March 2000, while still employed, he applied for ill-health retirement benefits, alleging incapacity due to medical conditions including back pain, migraines and depression. In May 2000 he was subjected to a disciplinary hearing on charges relating to accounting irregularities and was dismissed on grounds described as incapacity. His dismissal was unsuccessfully challenged through internal appeal and the CCMA and was ultimately deemed fair. In September 2000 the trustees of the fund rejected his application for ill-health retirement benefits. Over the following years, Mr Mohapi lodged complaints with the Pension Fund Adjudicator, obtaining two determinations in his favour. The second determination declared that he qualified for ill-health retirement benefits. The fund successfully reviewed and set aside this determination in the Gauteng Division of the High Court. Mr Mohapi then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed the High Court’s order setting aside the Pension Fund Adjudicator’s determination, with a minor correction deleting superfluous wording from the High Court order.

The case clarifies the interpretation of pension fund rules relating to ill-health retirement, confirming that such retirement presupposes an existing employment relationship. It also affirms the limited role of the Pension Fund Adjudicator and underscores that entitlement to ill-health retirement depends on the employer forming the requisite opinion, not on the adjudicator substituting its own assessment.