Mpumalanga man in Pension Showdown as Heineken Pursues R647k over Stolen Alcohol Stock
A former Heineken sales representative, Bongani Prince Makhubela, is locked in a legal battle after his former employer moved to recover over R647,000 by freezing his pension benefits.
Makhubela, who was dismissed in March 2021, stands accused of fraudulently acquiring alcoholic products from two of Heineken’s clients.
The liquor giant alleges that he misrepresented to customers that Heineken would enter into credit agreements with them and provide credits for the products, leaving the company facing significant losses.
Also Read: Constitutional Court Rules Husbands Can Now Adopt Their Wives’ Surnames in South Africa
Provident Fund Intervenes
According to IOL, in September 2024, Heineken asked the Distell Provident Fund to withhold Makhubela’s pension while it pursued civil proceedings.
The fund acted on the request, citing provisions of the Pension Funds Act that allow withholding benefits in cases involving potential financial prejudice to an employer.
Makhubela opposed the decision, insisting that there was no direct evidence linking him to fraud. He also highlighted that the delay in accessing his funds placed him under severe financial strain, with his daughter’s school fees being a pressing concern.
Appeal to the Pension Fund Adjudicator
Seeking relief, Makhubela appealed to the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA), asking for an immediate release of his benefits.
However, the PFA sided with Heineken, ruling that the provident fund acted within its powers by freezing the pension until the civil matter was finalized.
Unhappy with this ruling, Makhubela took his case further to the Financial Services Tribunal (FST), accusing the PFA of bias, inadequate investigation, and failing to balance his financial hardships against Heineken’s claims.
Tribunal Upholds Withholding
The matter was presided over by Advocate Kagiso Dulcie Magano, who acknowledged the personal difficulties Makhubela faced but found his arguments lacking in evidence.
Magano concluded that the provident fund’s decision was a fair and reasonable measure under the circumstances, dismissing the claim of bias.