Elderly widow seeking husband's pension dismissed after 10-year delay - IOL

Widow’s complaint over spousal pension rejected after 10-year delay.

An 84-year-old woman has lost her bid to force the Municipal Employees Pension Fund to investigate her claim for a spousal pension after the Financial Services Tribunal ruled that her complaint was lodged almost 10 years too late.

The tribunal dismissed Mamzwakazi Ntloyile’s application for reconsideration, finding that the Pension Funds Adjudicator was correct in refusing to investigate her complaint about the cessation of pension payments in 2015.

The tribunal found that Ntloyile had known about the non-payment since 2015 but only lodged her complaint with the Adjudicator in October 2025.

The tribunal said the complaint was time-barred under the Pension Funds Act, which prohibits the Adjudicator from investigating complaints relating to acts or omissions that occurred more than three years before they were received.

According to the ruling, Ntloyile's husband became a member of the Municipal Employees Pension Fund in July 1977 through his employment with the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality.

He retired in March 1990 and received his retirement benefit the following month.

He continued receiving a monthly pension until his death on June 26, 2010.

The Fund was not notified of his death, and Ntloyile continued receiving monthly pension payments on behalf of the deceased.

The Fund stopped the payments in May 2015 after discovering that the pensioner had died.

The Fund said Ntloyile had received R61,659.32 in pension payments between July 2010 and May 2015 after her husband's death.

It argued that the payments had been made in error and were not due to her because they were intended for the deceased pensioner.

Ntloyile, however, believed she qualified for a spousal pension under the Fund's rules.

The rules provide that when a pensioner dies, a surviving spouse who was married to the pensioner before retirement is entitled to a monthly pension equal to 50% of the pension the deceased received immediately before death.

The Fund disputed her entitlement, arguing that she was not married to the pensioner when he retired and therefore did not qualify for the benefit.

Ntloyile lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator on October 8, 2025, seeking an order compelling the Fund to pay her the spousal pension following her husband's death.

The adjudicator closed the complaint on May 22, 2026, finding that it was time-barred and that he lacked jurisdiction to investigate it.

The adjudicator said Ntloyile became aware of the cessation of payments in May 2015 and should have lodged her complaint by May 2018.

In her reconsideration application, Ntloyile argued that prescription should only have started running on September 9, 2024, when her lawyers emailed the Fund's administrator, Akani, enquiring about the pension benefit.

She said she had only discovered at that stage which pension fund administered her husband's benefits.

She also pointed out that she was 84 years old and uneducated, with no understanding of the Prescription Act.

She asked the tribunal to send the matter back to the Adjudicator for investigation.

The tribunal found that Ntloyile's explanations did not establish why her complaint should be treated as having been lodged within the prescribed period.

It said she had already approached the Fund's offices in June 2015 to enquire about the discontinued payments.

The tribunal said she was therefore in a position to request further information from the Fund and lodge a complaint if she was dissatisfied with its response.

It also found that she knew the identity of both the employer and the pension fund but had not pursued the matter.

The tribunal said she had failed to demonstrate that any material facts had been concealed from her or that they could not reasonably have been discovered earlier.

It further rejected her reliance on section 12(3) of the Prescription Act, which provides that prescription generally begins when a creditor knows the identity of the debtor and the facts giving rise to the claim, provided that the creditor could not reasonably have acquired that knowledge earlier.

The tribunal said Ntloyile had known about the non-payment since 2015 and could have made enquiries with reasonable care.

The tribunal acknowledged that it could have sympathy for Ntloyile but said it was bound by the provisions of the Pension Funds Act.

It said neither the adjudicator nor the tribunal could act beyond the powers granted to them by law.

The ruling further stated that the legislation did not provide for discretion to condone non-compliance with the three-year time limit.

The tribunal concluded that Ntloyile had failed to establish any basis for overturning the Adjudicator's decision.

It dismissed her application for reconsideration, leaving the adjudicator's decision to close the complaint unchanged.

The tribunal did not determine whether Ntloyile was entitled to a spousal pension under the Fund's rules, as it found that the complaint was time-barred.