- Financial Services Tribunal has overturned the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s decision to dismiss a disability benefit complaint.
- The tribunal found that the provident fund did not consider whether it should overlook its six-month notification rule
- The case has now been sent back to the Pension Funds Adjudicator for a new review
The Financial Services Tribunal has told the Pension Funds Adjudicator to review a complaint from former security guard Langanani Patrick Mafunisa after finding that an important issue was missed when his disability benefit claim was turned down.
The case was heard by a tribunal panel made up of Advocate C Woodrow SC, Advocate M Mphaga SC and Z Nkubungu-Shangisa. The decision, handed down on 3 August 2026, overturns the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s ruling from 28 November 2025 and returns the matter for further review.
Mafunisa’s application was against the Pension Funds Adjudicator, DDL Security Services (Pty) Ltd (trading as 24/7 Security Company), and the Private Security Sector Provident Fund.
Disability claim rejected for being late
Mafunisa worked for DDL Security Services from May 2021 and joined the Private Security Sector Provident Fund in June 2021. On 31 December 2023, Mafunisa became seriously ill with chronic kidney disease and was admitted to Polokwane Hospital, where he stayed until 19 January 2024. His last day at work was 22 January 2024.
After an incapacity enquiry in May 2024, Mafunisa’s job was ended due to ill health. He later received a withdrawal benefit of R6,193.33. Mafunisa took his complaint to the Pension Funds Adjudicator, saying he was owed a disability benefit and that his employer and the fund had failed to process his claim.
The adjudicator dismissed the complaint after finding that the disability claim was only reported to the fund on 5 November 2024, more than nine months after Mafunisa last worked. Since the fund’s rules say claims must be made within six months, the Adjudicator found that the fund acted properly.
Employer supported a second look
At the tribunal, Mafunisa argued that he had told his employer about his illness, submitted his medical documents and should not be penalised just because the claim reached the fund late.
The tribunal also noted that DDL Security Services did not oppose Mafunisa’s application. Instead, the employer accepted the facts around his illness and asked the fund to reopen and reconsider his disability claim.
Tribunal finds vital discretion ignored
The tribunal said the case should not have ended with the finding that the claim was submitted late. Instead, it found that the provident fund’s own rules allow its trustees to overlook the six-month time limit in certain situations.
The panel said it is clear that Mafunisa’s disability claim was reported to the fund after the six-month limit in the fund’s rules. But that is not the end of the matter. The tribunal found that the documents did not show the trustees had ever considered using their discretion before turning down the claim.
The tribunal also found that the fund was wrong to rely on the alleged non-payment of risk premiums as another reason to reject the claim.
Tribunal says discretion must be used
The tribunal stressed that a decision-maker cannot ignore a discretionary power given by its own rules. It said that dismissing the application would support a rejection based on an incomplete use of the fund’s powers and would deny Mafunisa what he is entitled to; a proper decision on whether the time limit should be waived.
The panel made it clear it could not decide itself whether the time limit should be waived because that discretion belongs to the trustees. It added that the decision to waive the time limit depends on the facts and circumstances of the claim, which is something only the fund’s trustees can decide.
Case returns to Pension Funds Adjudicator
Although the tribunal found problems with the earlier process, it also ruled that it could not send the case directly back to the provident fund.
Instead, the tribunal said the Financial Sector Regulation Act requires that cases go back to the original decision-maker, which here is the Pension Funds Adjudicator. The tribunal concluded that the application for reconsideration was successful.
It therefore set aside the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s ruling and sent the case back for a new review in line with the Financial Sector Regulation Act.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
