Interdict Denied: Municipalities Face A High Bar On Pension Withholding

Factual background

The Mpumalanga High Court has recently delivered a judgment on the critical considerations regarding withholding of pension benefits. While the judgment is not groundbreaking, it serves as a crucial reminder for the employers, pension funds, and other relevant stakeholders.

The application arose from a dispute between a local municipality and its former Chief Financial Officer. The municipality sought an interdict to prevent a pension fund from paying out the former employee's pension benefits pending the outcome of civil proceedings. The former employee had resigned after being served with a charge sheet following a forensic investigation report that alleged irregular expenditure, misrepresentation in financial statements, and procedural breaches in municipal financial management. The municipality later instituted a civil claim for R6 222 500.00 against the former employee and a third party, alleging misconduct and contraventions of the Municipal Finance Management Act. The pension fund confirmed that the former employee remained a contributing member and that deductions could only occur upon termination of membership or retirement, as provided by its consolidated rules and section 37D of the Pension Funds Act.

Issues before the court

The court had to determine whether the municipality had met the jurisdictional requirements for withholding pension benefits under section 37D of the Pension Funds Act and the fund's rules. It also had to decide whether the municipality satisfied the requirements for an interim interdict, namely: the existence of a prima facie right, a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm if the interdict was not granted, that the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, and that there was no alternative remedy available.

Court's finding and reasons

The court dismissed the application with costs. It held that the statutory and rule-based conditions for withholding pension benefits were not met because the former employee was still a contributing member of the fund. Section 37D and the fund's rules only permit deductions upon termination of membership or retirement. The court further found that the municipality failed to establish a prima facie right. Its allegations of dishonesty and misconduct were unsupported by evidence beyond the forensic report, which indicated procedural breaches but did not demonstrate fraud, theft, or dishonesty. The municipality also delayed in instituting civil proceedings and failed to provide corroborating evidence, weakening its claim. The court noted that other officials were involved in the transactions, making it unlikely that the former employee acted alone. Consequently, the court concluded that there was no reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm, the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, and alternative remedies were available. The application therefore failed at the first hurdle.

Importance of the case

This judgment is significant because it reinforces the strict compliance required under section 37D of the Pension Funds Act and the rules of pension funds. Employers cannot withhold pension benefits unless statutory conditions are met, including termination of membership and proof of liability for theft, fraud, or dishonesty.

The case also illustrates that interim relief will not be granted without clear evidence of a prima facie right and irreparable harm. It underscores the importance of substantiating allegations with credible evidence and acting promptly when pursuing legal remedies. For municipalities and other employers, the decision serves as a cautionary reminder that procedural breaches alone do not justify withholding pension benefits and that courts will not infer dishonesty where facts do not support such an inference.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.