Investec Employee Benefits Limited v Marais and Others

The first respondent was a member of two pension preservation funds administered by the second respondent and underwritten by the appellant. He elected to withdraw his benefits in late 2000/early 2001. Due to changes in interim and declared bonuses, the eventual payout in mid‑2001 was lower than the values quoted earlier. The first respondent disputed the reduced payout, contending he was entitled to the higher January 2001 values, and correspondence in mid‑2001 reflected an existing dispute. In July 2004, more than three years later, he lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator claiming underpayment. The Adjudicator upheld the complaint, condoned late lodging, and ordered recalculation and payment. The appellant successfully appealed to the SCA.

The appeal succeeded with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside. The Adjudicator’s determination was reviewed and replaced with an order dismissing the complaint.

This case authoritatively confirms that the Prescription Act applies to pension fund complaints and that the Pension Funds Adjudicator has no power to condone or extend statutory prescription. It clarifies the distinction between time limits under the Pension Funds Act and prescription under the Prescription Act, reinforcing legal certainty for pension funds and administrators.