Tribunal rules PFA lacked jurisdiction in Shahied Daniels pension dispute

The Financial Services Tribunal has set aside a Pension Funds Adjudicator determination in the dispute over former SAIPA chief executive Shahied Daniels’ withheld pension benefit, finding the adjudicator had no jurisdiction while related civil proceedings were pending in the High Court.

What the tribunal decided

The tribunal concluded that section 30H(2) of the Pension Funds Act bars the Pension Funds Adjudicator from investigating a complaint when civil proceedings concerning substantially the same matter have already begun. It set aside the adjudicator’s determination dated 15 August 2025, which had dismissed Daniels’ complaint against the withholding of his pension benefit.

Background: dismissal, court action and the withheld benefit

Shahied Daniels served as chief executive of the South African Institute of Professional Accountants from January 2019 until his dismissal in September 2024 after a disciplinary process in which he was found guilty of various breaches, including misconduct and governance failures. SAIPA instituted civil proceedings in the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg in November 2024, seeking damages arising from his conduct.

Acting on SAIPA’s request, Old Mutual SuperFund Pension Fund withheld Daniels’ pension benefit under section 37D(1)(b)(ii) of the Pension Funds Act while the civil claim proceeded. Daniels received R19,787.81 from his pension savings component, while over R900,000 remained subject to the withholding decision.

Regulatory complaint and tribunal review

Daniels lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator in February 2025, challenging the lawfulness of the withholding. The Adjudicator dismissed the complaint in August 2025, concluding SAIPA had established a sufficient prima facie case to justify the withholding while the civil proceedings continued. Daniels then took the matter to the Financial Services Tribunal, which considered whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear the complaint at all.

The tribunal found the overlap between the Adjudicator’s potential inquiry and the High Court litigation to be substantive: deciding whether the fund acted lawfully would, the tribunal said, require assessment of the same allegations of misconduct, claims for damages and factual issues already before the High Court. For that reason, the tribunal held section 30H(2) applied and the Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction.

Partial release and next steps

The tribunal was told that the pension fund had approached SAIPA about releasing part of Daniels’ benefit; SAIPA consented to the release of the portion not linked to its principal claims. The fund continues to withhold the remaining balance while the High Court litigation proceeds.

The tribunal emphasised that its ruling does not determine whether Daniels is liable to SAIPA or whether the fund was substantively correct in withholding the benefit. It limited its decision to the adjudicator’s lack of jurisdiction and observed that any future applications about continued withholding, preservation or release of the pension benefit must be brought before the High Court or another court with appropriate jurisdiction.

Legal significance

The decision clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries between the Pension Funds Adjudicator and the courts where disputes over withheld pension benefits overlap with pending litigation, underscoring the role of section 30H(2) in preventing duplicate proceedings and conflicting determinations.