R647K Pension Freeze highlights a fierce court battle as an ex-Heineken sales rep fights to access his retirement savings. Image credit: msn-com
(The Post News) – R647K Pension Freeze has placed a former Heineken employee at the center of a heated legal fight, as the international liquor company pushes to recover money it claims was lost through his alleged actions.
Bongani Prince Makhubela once worked as a sales representative for the brewery. However, his career ended abruptly in March 2021 after the company accused him of deceiving clients into releasing liquor stock under false pretenses. As a result, Heineken insists it suffered losses of more than R647,000.
R647K Pension Freeze Sparks Costly Legal Clash
The battle escalated in September 2024 when Heineken requested that the Distell Provident Fund freeze Makhubela’s pension. Consequently, his retirement savings were locked while the company pursued repayment through civil court. The fund agreed, citing specific clauses in the Pension Funds Act that allow employers to protect their financial interests during ongoing disputes.
Makhubela, however, strongly opposed this move. He argued that there was no convincing evidence linking him to fraud. In addition, he highlighted the devastating personal impact of the freeze. According to him, the decision placed his daughter’s education at risk and left him unable to afford mounting legal expenses. Therefore, he appealed to the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) for immediate relief.
R647K Pension Freeze Upheld Despite Appeal
The PFA, nevertheless, sided with Heineken and the Distell Fund, insisting that the decision complied with the law. Consequently, Makhubela escalated the matter to the Financial Services Tribunal (FST). He argued that the adjudicator acted unfairly, overlooked critical details, and failed to balance his financial hardship against the company’s potential losses.
The tribunal, however, dismissed his challenge. Presiding member Advocate Kagiso Dulcie Magano explained that although his financial struggles were regrettable, he had not produced sufficient evidence to disprove the company’s allegations. Furthermore, the tribunal emphasized that the Distell Fund had not simply rubber-stamped Heineken’s request but had instead considered all submissions before freezing the pension.
Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the original ruling. As a result, Makhubela’s R647K Pension Freeze remains in force until the civil case reaches a final conclusion.
Please share your thoughts contact Thembeka via email: Journalist-thembeka@thepostnews.net
About the Author
