oa De Rebus - Dipping into the 'cookie jar' = losing benefits - Soko v Caltex Oil Provident Fund and Another (PFA) : feature
|Article Title||Dipping into the 'cookie jar' = losing benefits - Soko v Caltex Oil Provident Fund and Another (PFA) : feature|
|© Publisher:||Law Society of South Africa|
|Affiliations||1 University of the Witwatersrand|
|Publication Date||Dec 2013|
|Pages||18 - 19|
Can a pension fund deduct from a complainant's pension benefits an amount that the complainant was accused by his or her employer of stealing from the company? This was the issue that the pension funds adjudicator had to determine in Soko v Caltex Oil Provident Fund and Another (PFA) (unreported case no PFA/GA/23047/2008/MN/LPM). While the adjudicator was not able to rule on the merits of the complaint because the matter had prescribed, the Supreme Court of Appeal has upheld the power of a pension fund to deduct pension benefits pending proceedings in a court of law by a participating employer (see Highveld Steel and Vanadium Corporation Ltd v Oosthuizen 2009 (4) SA 1 (SCA)). Despite the fact that the Soko case was decided in 2008, it remains important to warrant academic commentary.
Article metrics loading...