A former University of Venda employee, who battled the Univen Provident Fund for several years to claim what he believed he was owed, has finally tasted victory. On Friday (20 March), the Financial Services Tribunal overturned a decision by the Pension Funds Adjudicator that had barred him from receiving part of the excess reserves accumulated by the fund.
Calvin Muloiwa, a resident of Louis Trichardt, began working at Univen on 1 January 1992. During his final years at the university, he also served as a trustee of the Provident Fund.
At the time, provident funds faced issues over accumulated surplus funds. Legislation later made it compulsory for provident funds to reallocate all or part of excess reserves to members, rather than keeping them.
During a board meeting on 17 May 2022, the Univen Provident Fund’s board decided to distribute 50% of the reserve to members, in line with a recommendation from the fund’s actuary. It agreed that a list of calculations for each member would be prepared and forwarded to the principal officer for final approval. The 50% portion designated for distribution amounted to R5,338,262.
Muloiwa was dismissed from Univen on 27 November 2023. In documents submitted to the tribunal, he described the dismissal as unfair and noted that it was recommended by the same person who was also the fund’s principal officer. Following his dismissal, he withdrew from the Provident Fund on 30 November 2023 and received a withdrawal benefit of R630,061.97 in January 2024.
What followed were several years of contesting his share of the excess reserves. The fund’s board met again on 7 February 2024 and passed a resolution, signed on 15 April 2024, limiting payments to members who were still actively contributing to the fund as of 1 April 2024.
Muloiwa said he was never informed about the meeting, even though he was still a board member at the time. He said no agenda or minutes were shared, despite the fund’s rules requiring proper record-keeping.
After discovering he had been excluded from the benefit list, Muloiwa wrote a memorandum to the principal officer inquiring about his share and the reasons for his exclusion, but received no response. On 3 March 2025, he lodged a formal complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
The adjudicator dismissed his complaint on 24 July 2025, concluding that the 2022 discussions were not a “final decision” and that the board had exercised reasonable discretion in its April 2024 resolution.
Muloiwa then sought a reconsideration of the adjudicator’s decision through the Financial Services Tribunal. The matter was heard by Judge MF Legodi, Adv Moses Mphaga and Adv P Long. The tribunal set aside the adjudicator’s decision to dismiss Muloiwa’s complaint and remitted the matter for further investigation.
The tribunal criticised the adjudicator for failing to investigate whether the 7 February 2024 board meeting - which led to the resolution excluding Muloiwa - was lawful and properly constituted. It noted that the fund, not Muloiwa, was responsible for providing documentation proving the meeting was properly held, which it failed to do.
The tribunal also found that the adjudicator wrongly relied on general fund rules about withdrawal benefits instead of sections 15A to 15G of the Pension Funds Act, which specifically address former members’ rights to participate in surplus and reserve distributions.
The adjudicator did not properly determine the nature of the decision made on 17 May 2022, nor did she investigate why it took nearly two years to resolve the apportionment or what was decided at a subsequent meeting in December 2022.
Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that if the 2024 meeting was irregular, any decision taken there could not stand, and the adjudicator must now establish whether Muloiwa’s exclusion as a former member complied with the Pension Funds Act.
In an interview this week, Muloiwa said the exclusion had a major financial impact. “I believe I was unfairly deprived of my share,” he said.
He believes other members may also have been affected. “This case affects both dismissed and current members. The distribution did not properly account for accumulated interest and market value, and I believe it should be reviewed,” he said.