Mpumalanga man fights for pension fund after Heineken claims over R647,000 for stolen alcohol

A former Heineken employee dismissed for misconduct is engaged in a legal battle to stop the liquor giant from claiming over R647,000 from his pension fund.

Bongani Prince Makhubela worked for Heineken as a sales representative until he was accused of fraudulently acquiring liquor products from his employer's clients.

The bitter dispute arises from claims that Makhubela fraudulently acquired alcoholic products from two of Heineken's clients, resulting in substantial financial loss worth over R647,000.

To facilitate this, Heineken said Makhubela misrepresented to the customers that Heineken would enter into credit agreements with them and pass credits for the products. 

Following his dismissal in March 2021, Makhubela's legal woes escalated when, in September 2024, Heineken formally requested the Distell Provident Fund to withhold Makhubela’s benefits, effectively freezing his pension while they sought to recover the claimed financial losses.

The Distell Provident Fund, heeding Heineken’s claims, exercised its discretion to provisionally withhold Makhubela's pension benefits. This decision, endorsed by the principles outlined in the Pension Funds Act, aimed to safeguard Heineken's interests pending the outcome of civil proceedings against him.

Makhubela, however, contested this decision, appealing to the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) for an immediate release of his pension funds, arguing there was no solid evidence connecting him to the alleged fraud.

Makhubela expressed his concerns about the severe financial repercussions of withholding his pension funds. He cited his daughter's pressing school fees as a primary concern, stating that prolonged inaccessibility to these funds threatened her education. 

He requested the release of his funds because the ongoing delay was unfairly prejudicing him and hindering his ability to cover legal expenses to defend himself against the civil claim.

The PFA, however, ruled against Makhubela, affirming the Distell Provident Fund's decision to withhold benefits, citing compliance with the Pension Funds Act's exceptions.

Dismayed by this outcome, Makhubela pursued recourse with the Financial Services Tribunal (FST), arguing that bias and procedural irregularities had marred the PFA’s investigation. 

He claimed the PFA's investigation was insufficient, he was denied a fair hearing, and there was an improper balancing of the prejudice he would face against the employer's potential losses.

Presiding over the tribunal, Advocate Kagiso Dulcie Magano noted that while Makhubela’s financial distress was regrettable, he failed to furnish substantial evidence countering Heineken's allegations.

Magano highlighted that the tribunal found no wrongdoing in the Distell’s exercise of discretion, stating that it was a reasonable and conscientious response to the claims presented by Heineken.

"The tribunal finds no evidence that Distell's discretion was just a rubber-stamp of Heineken's request. Instead, it was a reasonable and documented response based on the information supplied by all parties involved. Therefore, the tribunal upholds the PFA's decision," added advocate Magano.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.