Brian Molefe's ongoing legal battle over R32m Eskom pension fund payout
Image: Jacques Naude / Independent Newspapers
Former Eskom chief executive Brian Molefe will continue his fight against the power utility's pension and provident fund over the millions of rand he received in a payout in 2017.
In 2018, the DA, trade union Solidarity, and the EFF obtained a Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, order reviewing and setting aside Molefe's reappointment as Eskom boss as well as the proposal granting him early retirement.
At the time, the full bench of the high court – Judges Keoagile Matojane, Hans Fabricius, and Segopotje Mphahlele – also declared any payment or sum of money received by Molefe under any purported agreement between him and Eskom invalid and ordered him to repay the amounts within 10 days.
Molefe unsuccessfully applied for leave to appeal to both the Supreme Court of Appeal and the Constitutional Court.
Video Player is loading.
Play Video
Play
Unmute
Current Time
0:00
/
Duration
-:-
Loaded :
0%
Stream Type LIVE
Seek to live, currently behind live
LIVE
Remaining Time
-
0:00
This is a modal window.
Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window.
Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan
Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque
Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps
Reset
restore all settings to the default values Done
Close Modal Dialog
End of dialog window.
Advertisement
Next
Stay
Close ✕
Ad loading
In their scathing ruling, the judges found Eskom's decision to waive penalties and buy Molefe an extra 13 years of service totalling R30.1 million after only 15 months' service at the age of 50 stretched incredulity and was unlawful for want of compliance with the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund's (EPPF's) rules.
'What is most disturbing is the total lack of dignity and shame by people in leadership positions who abuse public funds with naked greed for their benefit without a moment's consideration of the circumstances of fellow citizens who live in absolute squalor throughout the country with no basic services,' the high court reasoned.
In July 2022, the EPPF was later directed by Judge Norman Davis to repay Eskom the R32.3m payout, including employer contributions, Molefe's monthly pension contributions, and his performance bonus pension contributions.
Molefe was ordered to repay the fund about R10m together with mora interest, which is charged when payment is not made.
The former Transnet chief executive has maintained that based on his calculations, the net amount that he has to repay is just less than R1.5m.
The EPPF then became entitled to set-off against the amount due by Molefe against the net balance of the Transnet Retirement Fund lump sum he received upon receipt of a tax directive from the SA Revenue Service (Sars) on the tax payable on the amount.
Molefe appealed the July 2022 judgment, and on July 11, 2025, another full bench of the high court – Judges Ronel Tolmay, Mmonoa Teffo and Rochelle Francis-Subbiah – upheld his challenge. Parts of Judge Davis' order were set aside and substituted.
'The matter is referred to oral evidence to determine the amount payable by the appellant (Molefe) to the first respondent (EPPF), before a different judge.
'The first respondent must discover all documents relating to the calculation and flow of money as well as all documents it intends to use during the leading of evidence within 15 days of this order,' the court ruled.
Additionally, according to the judgment, Molefe must discover all documents relating to the calculation and flow of money and all documents he intends to use during the leading of evidence within 15 days of the filing of his documents.
The judges continued: 'The judges stated that actuaries may file supplementary reports after receiving the aforementioned documents, and must do so at least 45 days before the matter is heard.'
Molefe did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday.
loyiso.sidimba@inl.co.za
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mail & Guardian
2 hours ago
- Mail & Guardian
Operation Vulindlela: Big on policy but low on results
Mixed bag: President Cyril Ramaphosa's Operation Vulindlela is stronger on policy than implementation. Photo: GCIS The government's flagship economic reform programme, Operation Vulindlela, has registered modest progress in the second phase of its roll-out — particularly in visa reform — but faces mounting criticism for delays in key infrastructure areas and a lack of transparency in outcomes and expenditure. The latest These visa reforms aim to 'attract skills, investment and tourism through a streamlined and modernised visa system'. The home affairs department has also upgraded its digital verification system to enable remote authentication and reduce downtime — a step toward building a digital identity system. Yet the gains made in visa systems are in contrast to widespread delays in fixing constraints in water and sanitation, electricity and freight logistics. Most work so far has been legislative, with little tangible implementation. Operation Vulindlela, initiated during President Cyril Ramaphosa's first term, aims to boost economic growth through structural reform. Ramaphosa has touted the operation as a key achievement, and in his latest 'The reduction in load-shedding over the past year was supported by the reforms we introduced to unlock private investment in electricity generation, while reforms in the telecommunications sector have brought down the cost of mobile data,' he wrote. Launched in May after cabinet approval, But despite policy work being under way in several areas — with the Electricity Regulation Amendment Bill, the Water Action Plan, the Digital Transformation Roadmap and the Local Government White Paper among the documents drafted — implementation remains limited. The progress report itself concedes that of the seven priority areas in phase two, only visa reform has moved into tangible outcomes. The electricity sector reform includes the establishment of the National Transmission Company of SA, which will eventually separate power utility Eskom's grid from generation and distribution. The government has also finalised a national wheeling framework to enable third-party access to the grid. Yet, the new transmission company still awaits licensing as a market operator. The National Energy Regulator of SA is also finalising market codes for private wholesale. Legal adviser and social activist Nkanyiso Ngqulunga was scathing in his assessment, saying Operation Vulindlela represents an acceleration of neoliberal policies that are proving counterproductive. 'It has been a complete failure. The unbundling of Eskom has not yielded any positive results but rather put the country's energy generation into the private sector,' Ngqulunga said, adding that the reforms have not attracted the promised investment. 'It hasn't attracted investment as intended. We are implementing policies that have been proven to fail — allowing the private sector in with the hope that it will boost the economy is counterintuitive.' Ngqulunga believes the government should focus on building state capacity and investing in public infrastructure. 'We need to unlock opportunities by empowering public assets,' he said. 'At a time when the government is underperforming, geopolitical tensions are high and tariff wars are growing, it's misguided to think these reforms will attract investment.' In logistics, a new Transnet Rail Infrastructure Manager division has been created to modernise operations and enable private operator access. In December, the rail, port and pipeline parastatal released network access tariffs and received 98 slot applications from private freight operators. Conditional awards will be announced by 15 August. Ntokozo Buthelezi, an economist and researcher, is concerned about the Vulindlela initiative's accountability. 'I remember from the budget speech, the minister mentioned phase two and I wondered what happened to phase one,' she said, adding that she found it to be 'vague' with regard to outcomes and money spent. 'We don't know what happened, how much was spent and what the outcomes were. There is so much secrecy — we have no clue as the public on how investment and loans are spent by the government,' she said, also criticising the absence of oversight. 'They don't tell us much. It's just numbers — billions here, billions there — but no tangible outcomes.'
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Matshela Koko won't challenge court ruling on R1. 56bn Eskom, ABB settlement
Former acting Eskom chief executive Matshela Koko will not challenge the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria judgment dismissing his application to intervene in the dispute between the power utility and ABB South Africa, which agreed to pay almost R1.56 billion in 2020. Image: Bheki Radebe / Independent Newspapers Former acting Eskom chief executive, Matshela Koko, will not challenge the ruling declining his bid to intervene in the R1.56 billion settlement agreement reached by the power utility and ABB South Africa. The Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, last month dismissed with costs Koko's application to intervene in the matter in terms of an earlier judgment delivered in April 2024. At the time, the high court ordered any interested party who has a direct and material interest in its orders on the R1.56bn settlement to apply within 30 days of the last date of publication of the order for leave to intervene and describe the nature of their interest in the relief and the relief sought. The court also ordered that interested parties must show cause, on a date and on such terms as it may determine after receipt of any application why the order should be altered, varied or rescinded. In compliance with the April 2024 order Koko complained that unflattering allegations were made against him in the papers filed in the review proceedings and that he was referred to by name and some paragraphs contain reference to his conduct. He said the settlement agreement for ABB to pay Eskom had negative consequences for him as his bank account was closed and he suffered reputational harm. In refusing Koko's intervention application, Acting Judge Irene de Vos found that he lacked a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the review proceedings. "Koko launched an application to rescind an order in circumstances where he largely accepts the order is correct; where he is not mentioned in either the order or the judgment; for purposes of protecting his reputation," the acting judge stated. The contract in question was for the provision of control and instrumentation system for the coal-fired Kusile Power Station project constructed under Eskom's nation building programme to increase its generating capacity. Eskom, ABB and the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) later applied to the court to set aside the contract as a result of corruption and bribery that occurred in the award. The SIU has publicly indicated that it intends to claim monies from Koko, who fears such action. He told the court that not having been cited in the review proceedings means he is limited in presenting a defence in potential future proceedings to be brought against him. In response to questions, Koko, who represented himself in the matter, said the judgment could be summarised as a mixed outcome, adding that he lost the battle to intervene in the review proceedings, but emerged with a significant procedural victory in the broader context. He further said he won the war by emerging from the case without adverse findings or direct legal accountability. Koko added that this procedural victory distances him from the ABB contract irregularities and undermines the narrative tying him to corruption, providing him with a solid defence in this specific legal chapter. [email protected] [email protected]
IOL News
a day ago
- IOL News
Eskom ordered to cough up R1 billion in costs after cancelled Koeberg project
Eskom loses court bid to fend off R1bn payment after cancelling a contract. Image: Supplied Eskom has been ordered to pay close to R1 billion to French nuclear contractor Framatome, after the Western Cape High Court found the utility refused to pay damages after it cancelled a contract to install steam generators at Koeberg nuclear power station. The ruling stems from a 2014 agreement Eskom originally concluded with Areva, which was later ceded to Framatome. The deal covered the design, manufacture and installation of six replacement steam generators – three for each unit at Koeberg. Framatome, which has been in operation for 60 years, was contracted to supply and install two sets of three replacement steam generators, one set to be installed in each of the reactor buildings at units 1 and 2 at Koeberg during separate planned outages of these units. These installations were meant to take place during a scheduled maintenance outage, which kept getting postponed. Two months after the outage was finally scheduled to happen, 'Eskom informed Framatome that it would not be continuing with the steam generator replacement,' the judgement said. As a result of the cancellation of the deal, Eskom's project manager 'acknowledged that Eskom's decision to postpone the work constituted a compensation event,' the judgment read. Although the project manager had acknowledged that Eskom's cancellation triggered compensation, he determined that the value of compensation was nil. The entire matter then went to arbitration, where the adjudicator ordered that Eskom must pay compensation for cancelling the contract, including for storing equipment, as well as implementation activities, which work had been wasted by Eskom delaying the date of the planned maintenance outage. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ After some back and forth between the parties and the adjudicator, during which the parties didn't agree on costs, 'Eskom made it clear that it had no intention of providing the adjudicator with any further information or participating any further in the adjudication process,' the ruling read. As a result, the adjudicator issued a determination of the damages amount, and Eskom decided to take the issue to the Western Cape High Court, arguing that the amount in damages was not determined by the date it was due – voiding his determination. In defending Eskom's legal action, Framatome argued that none of the arbitration proceedings were improper, nor was the adjudicator abusing his power. The Judge ruled that 'there is no basis to set aside the decisions of the adjudicator which are valid and binding. In terms of the parties' contract Eskom was obliged to comply therewith.' Eskom, it found, had to comply with its contractual obligations. The court found that Framatome was entitled to the full amount it sought. In addition to the R1bn payment, Eskom had to pay interest and costs. IOL
