Sasol Limited v Chemical Industries National Provident Fund

Sasol Limited and three related pension or provident funds sought to facilitate the transfer of approximately 2 444 Sasol employees from the Chemical Industries National Provident Fund (CINPF) to alternative funds after amendments to CINPF’s rules purportedly allowed in‑service transfers. Sasol implemented a ‘window period’, organised nationwide information sessions, collected employee election forms, and ceased paying contributions to CINPF from 1 March 2013. CINPF disputed that any valid withdrawal or transfer had occurred, contending that its amended rules—particularly rules 3.4.1 and 10.2—had not been complied with, as the trustees had not properly investigated, approved, or confirmed the transfers nor satisfied themselves that the transfers were reasonable and equitable. CINPF approached the High Court for declaratory and consequential relief; Sasol and the new funds counter‑applied for declarations validating the transfers.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel. The High Court’s order declaring that the employees were not validly transferred and remained members of the CINPF, and dismissing Sasol’s counter‑application, was upheld.

The case clarifies that in‑service withdrawals and transfers from pension or provident funds require strict compliance with fund rules, particularly trustee oversight and approval. It affirms the central fiduciary role of trustees and underscores that employers cannot unilaterally effect member withdrawals or rely on partial compliance. The judgment is important for the interpretation of pension fund rules and the interaction between fund rules and section 14 of the Pension Funds Act.