An axed manager of a large KwaZulu-Natal multi-agricultural specialist company — accused of “stealing” 350 head of cattle worth R4m — has failed in a court bid to get his hands on his pension money.
While Neil Hillhouse claimed that he desperately needed the money because he is suffering from kidney failure, Pietermaritzburg High Court judge Rob Mossop said there were technical defaults in his application.
This because he had sought relief against his former employer, Pidelta, and not the pension fund which had a discretion to withhold monies in the face of civil claims or criminal cases against a fund member.
Mossop, in his ruling, summed up the matter thus: “This application involves a herd of cattle, a failing kidney and an accumulated pension benefit.”
The cattle, he said, belonged to Pidelta.
The failing kidney and the pension money, about R546,000, held by the AF pension fund, belong to Hillhouse.
Mossop said Hillhouse had been employed by Pidelta as its livestock manager and, later, the manager of one of its crop farms.
In November 2021 he developed end-stage kidney failure and had undergone treatment for this.
In June 2023 he faced disciplinary action for failing to manage a herd of cattle, allowing 70 of his own cattle to graze on company land and undertaking business in direct competition with Pidelta.
He was found guilty and dismissed.
With no income, Hillhouse said he believed he could use his pension money to pay for his living expenses and future medical expenses, but this was dashed when the company reported to the pension fund that it had suffered financial losses due to his conduct.
Mossop said the company told the pension fund that it had laid a criminal charge with the police relating to the theft of cattle. It also served Hillhouse with a civil summons in which it claimed, in the main charge, the physical return of 350 head of cattle, valued at R4m.
An alternative claim was that Hillhouse has breached his fiduciary duty by speculating in cattle for his own account while using company resources, feed and medication, making a secret profit of about R3.2m.
The fund, while not cited as a party in the proceedings, had submitted an explanatory affidavit including minutes of the benefits subcommittee which considered the matter.
Mossop said it was clear that the subcommittee had not displayed a “subservient, slavish willingness” to accede to the company’s request to block the payout of Hillhouse’s pension money.
Rather, he said, it had displayed an independent mind to the issue. The committee had taken into account that Hillhouse had previously admitted to speculating in cattle, that he had been found guilty at his disciplinary hearing of gross misconduct and that he had admitted permitting his own cattle to graze on company land.
It ruled against Hillhouse, being satisfied that there was a prima facie case against him and the company had a reasonable chance of success in its civil claim.
Hillhouse, in his court application, sought an order against the company, seeking to compel it to fill out all the necessary forms for the withdrawal of his pension benefit.
This was flawed, Mossop said, because he had not challenged the decision of the pension fund committee to put a hold on the funds.
Explaining the law, he said while pension benefits were regarded as being untouchable and sacrosanct, a section had an “unashamed purpose” of protecting the interests of employers against the dishonest conduct of employees.
The discretion rested with the fund’s administrators.
Counsel for Hillhouse had conceded that both the company and the fund had, in this matter, acted perfectly lawfully.
Mossop said Hillhouse had not established a clear right to the release of the money.
“In fact, it is not a right at all,” he said.
The difficulty for Hillhouse was that he had not directly challenged the decision of the pension fund itself, instead focusing his attention on the company which had not taken the decision.
“It (the company) simply drew certain facts to the attention of the pension fund, and requested it to make a decision. The fund acceded to this request after exercising its discretion.
“Until such time as that decision is overturned or varied, the pension benefit will not be paid to the applicant (Hillhouse).”
The application therefore cannot succeed, Mossop said, dismissing it, and ordering Hillhouse to pay the company’s costs.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.