Municipal Employees Pension Fund v Mongwaketse

Ms Dineo Mongwaketse was employed on a fixed-term contract as Chief Audit Executive of a district municipality. Believing pension fund membership to be compulsory, she applied to join the Municipal Employees Pension Fund (MEPF) and was accepted as a member. Contributions totalling 29.5% of her salary (7.5% member and 22% employer portion) were deducted from her remuneration, although in reality the entire amount came from her cost-to-company package. It later emerged that, under the rules of the MEPF, persons employed for a limited period were not eligible for membership. When Ms Mongwaketse discovered that she was not credited with the full contributions and was not eligible to be a member, she stopped contributing and lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator seeking repayment of all contributions made. The Adjudicator ordered the MEPF to refund all contributions (less amounts already paid). The MEPF appealed and sought review, arguing that the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction and that only a resignation benefit was payable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The determination of the Pension Funds Adjudicator ordering repayment of all contributions (less amounts already paid) was upheld. Cost-related limitations were imposed on the appellants’ attorneys and counsel.

The case clarifies that the Pension Funds Adjudicator has wide jurisdiction to determine disputes involving pension funds, including claims by persons who were wrongly admitted as members. It affirms that pension fund rules are binding and that ultra vires membership is void, with restitutionary consequences. The judgment reinforces a purposive interpretation of the Pension Funds Act to promote accessible and effective dispute resolution.