SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

CASE NO.: PFA70/2022

In the matter between:

E[....] M[....] L[....]	APPLICANT

and

ESKOM PENSION AND PROVIDENT FUND	FIRST RESPONDENT

THE PENSION FUNDS ADJUDICATOR	SECOND RESPONDENT

ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED	THIRD RESPONDENT

DECISION

1	The applicant applies for the reconsideration of a determination of the Pension Funds Adjudicator in which she dismissed his complaint against the Fund, the first respondent.

2	The parties waived their right to a formal hearing and this is the decision of the Tribunal.

3	The applicant was a member of the Fund by virtue of his employment with Eskom, the third respondent. He was married but the marriage was dissolved through divorce. The court order, which was by agreement, entitled the wife, the non- member, to an equal share of his fund benefit as at the date of divorce.

4	The amount was calculated and paid to the spouse but the applicant was and is dissatisfied with the calculation of her benefit and, consequently, the value of his remaining benefit.

5	The Fund had many interactions with the applicant and had the value of his benefit recalculated by an actuary. The applicant remained dissatisfied. He then filed a complaint with the PFA, who investigated the matter. The PFA even appointed another actuary to calculate the applicant’s benefit and she came to the conclusion that it was fairly determined as at the date of divorce.

6	But nothing can or could satisfy the applicant because he apparently believes that all and sunder are biased and dishonest. It is not surprising that the Fund asks that his reconsideration application be dismissed in terms of sec 234(4) of the Financial Sector Regulation Act 9 of 2017 as being frivolous.

7	The main if not only contention on reconsideration is that the applicant’s interest and the spouse’s entitlement were based on a 2013 benefit statement whilst it should have been calculated as at the date of divorce during 2011.

8	The applicant does not have a copy of the 2013 statement and the Fund was unable to retrieve it from its system.

9	The fact is, and the applicant has nothing to controvert it, is that all the calculations were done as at the date of divorce.

10	It would appear that the applicant remembers what the figures in the 2013 statement were and, says he, these were binding on the Fund and not given for purposes of illustration only.

11	The object of the exercise escapes me. In any event, if the applicant and his attorney had bothered to read the many benefit statements in the file, they would have seen the clear disclaimer at the upper right-hand corner of the first page of each and every one of them that belies his assertion and belief.

12	One has to conclude that the application is clearly frivolous and the Tribunal is entitled to dismiss it summarily under those circumstances, which is the order of the Tribunal. Any referral to the PFA would be an exercise in futility.

ORDER: The application is summarily dismissed.

Signed on behalf of the Tribunal on 7 March 2023.

LTC Harms (deputy chair)