5 days ago
Former Sasol employee disputes R1. 8 million payout 10 years after retrenchment
A former Sasol employee took Old Mutual to the Financial Service Tribunal to dispute the R1.8 million pension payout.
Image: Pexels
A former Sasol employee took Old Mutual to the Financial Service Tribunal (FST) to dispute the R1.8 million payout he received after his retrenchment in 2015.
Thabiso Sehlabaka worked for Sasol from 1988 until he was retrenched in 2015.
Initially a member of the Sasol Pension Fund, Sehlabaka transitioned through the Sasol Negotiated Provident Fund before finally migrating to the Old Mutual Superfund.
Following his retrenchment, in April 2015, Sehlabaka received over R1.8 million after tax deductions. Four years later, in November 2019, he received an additional sum of R26,777 from the Unclaimed Benefits Preservation Fund, but it was only in August 2024, that he raised concerns about his payout.
He lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) as he was dissatisfied with his payout. Unfortunately, in December 2024, the PFA declined to investigate his complaint, finding it time barred.
The setback did not deter Sehlabaka, who filed an application for reconsideration with the FST in February 2025. He argued that he only became aware of potential discrepancies in early 2024, leading him to assert that his complaint was still within acceptable time limits.
His dissatisfaction stemmed from claims of insufficient compensation after 27 years of service, discrepancies in years of service accounted for, and pivotal issues regarding taxation. Sehlabaka alleged an incorrect South African Revenue Services (SARS) tax deduction of R15,000 that he claims remains unpaid and is owed to him.
Furthermore, he claimed that he never consented to his exit from the Sasol Negotiated Provident Fund to Old Mutual's Superfund. He was also dissatisfied with the overall benefit amount received after 27 years of service. Moreover, he said some years of service were not accounted for.
However, Sasol clarified that Sehlabaka was not required to opt into the Superfund, as this was accomplished through a Section 14 Transfer.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Presiding over the tribunal, Advocate Salmé Maritz examined the case and found Sehlabaka offered insufficient reasons for the nine-year delay in raising his concerns. Maritz noted that the allegations of incorrect tax deductions and unaccounted service years were vague and unsupported, lacking any new factual basis that could not have been unearthed with reasonable diligence.
Regarding the disputed R15,000 tax deduction, Maritz clarified that this amount was lawfully deducted in accordance with the Income Tax Act and specified that Old Mutual was mandated to remit taxes to SARS prior to disbursing any funds.
"The Superfund (Old Mutual) is legally required to deduct and pay this tax to SARS before making a payment. The Superfund cannot refund lawfully deducted tax to the applicant (Sehlabaka). If the applicant disputes the deduction or believes it wasn't paid to SARS, he must raise it with SARS," added Maritz.
Consequently, Sehlabaka's application was dismissed.
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel
