Zimpapers Logo

Fidelis Munyoro Chief Court Reporter
A former Harare City Council worker is suing the local authority and its pension fund for non-payment of his pension dues amounting to $50 000. Mr Wilford Nyahanda Makoni was retired in July this year, but claims he did not get the lump sum payout he is entitled to. In his summons filed at the High Court recently, Mr Makoni cited Harare City Council and Local Authorities Pension Fund (LAPF) as defendants. According to his declaration, Mr Makoni, who is being represented by Ms Rumbidzayi Zvimba of Zvimba and Madzima Law Chambers, wants the court to compel the council and LAPF to pay the $50 000 pension that is due to him.

He also wants council to pay interest on the principal amount at the prescribed rate calculated from July 3, 2017 to date of full payment. Mr Makoni claimed that he made pension contributions to council that were supposed to be remitted to LAPF during the subsistence of his employment. On retirement, Mr Makoni argued, he was entitled to a pension lump sum from LAPF.

“Despite the demand, the defendants have neglected, failed and or refused to pay the plaintiff (Mr Makoni) his pension to the tune of $50 000 when it became due and payable. The plaintiff has been unnecessarily put out of pocket by the defendants hence an order of costs on a higher scale is justified,” read Mr Makoni’s declaration.

Harare City Council is yet to respond to the summons, but LAPF is opposing the claim, arguing that Mr Makoni never contributed anything to the fund. LAPF, through its lawyers Sawyer and Mkushi, agrees that Mr Makoni was its member through the council pension scheme, it denies having received any contributions from him.

“Second defendant’s (LAPF) obligation to pay pension and other benefits to the plaintiff was conditional on the remittal of pension contributions by first defendant. First defendant deducted plaintiff’s pension contributions from his remuneration, but did not forward them to second defendant. Effectively, plaintiff was not contributing to second defendant’s pension scheme,” argued LAPF.

LAPF also pointed out in its plea that council advised the pension fund and undertook to remit the contributions to it. As a result, the LPF calculated and informed Mr Makoni the amount that should have been payable to him as pension.

“This was on the strength of first defendant’s guarantee that it was forwarding plaintiff’s pension contributions to second defendant for onward transmission to plaintiff.  First defendant reneged on its undertaking and did not remit plaintiff’s contributions,” said LAPF.

Consequently, LAPF argued that it is not liable for payment of any amount to Mr Makoni until council has remitted his pension contributions. LAPF urged Mr Makoni to deal with his former employer for payment. The pension fund also argued that there was no legal basis on which an order for costs on a higher scale should be made against it.