The office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator has dismissed a complaint lodged by the brother of a deceased pension fund member who challenged the distribution of her R834,000 death benefit.
In a determination handed down by Deputy Pension Funds Adjudicator Naheem Essop, it was ruled that the Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund acted reasonably and within its legal mandate when it allocated 100% of the benefit to the deceased’s boyfriend, GB, despite the family’s objections that the couple was never legally married.
The matter arose following the death of CD in 2020. At the time of her passing, she was a member of the Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund, which she had joined in March 2007. Because her sole nominated beneficiary was her estate, the distribution of her substantial lump-sum death benefit fell under the strict provisions of Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act. This section requires fund trustees to identify, trace, and equitably allocate benefits to the deceased’s legal and factual dependants.
The deceased’s brother, JD, filed a complaint with the adjudicator in September 2023. He expressed strong grievances about what he characterised as the fund’s poor communication and an unreasonable delay in distributing the money. Furthermore, JD vigorously disputed the fund’s subsequent decision to award the entire death benefit to his sister’s life partner.
According to the brother, the deceased and GB were never legally married, nor was their marriage registered with the Department of Home Affairs. He maintained that the family had witnessed a ceremony that was explicitly understood to be a religious “blessing” for the couple to live together, rather than a legally binding marriage. He further argued that GB was not financially dependent on his late sister and had already received payouts from her other policies.
Submissions from the Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund revealed a prolonged and complex investigation that began immediately after the deceased’s death. The fund received notification of her passing in late December 2020 and spent the next several years attempting to establish her living arrangements, verify whether she had any children, and trace potential dependants.
The timeline submitted by the fund showed that its claims department faced hurdles in gathering the necessary documentation. In December 2021, the complainant himself confirmed to the fund that he was not financially dependent on his sister and also stated that she had been living with GB.
When the fund eventually traced GB, he informed the fund that he had not been financially dependent on his late partner. However, the board of trustees concluded that he qualified as a legal dependant under the law.
Unhappy with the outcome, the brother challenged the decision, but the board maintained that it had exercised its legally mandated discretion in an equitable and just manner.
In his legal analysis, Essop cited established legal precedents, which clarify that cohabiting partners qualify as factual dependants provided, they share a common household and maintain a permanent relationship of mutual dependency, regardless of whether a legal marriage certificate exists.
Because the brother had previously confirmed that his sister had no children and no other financial dependants, GB was identified as the deceased’s sole permanent life partner and only legal dependant.
“On the complainant’s own version, the deceased and GB lived together, and their relationship and living arrangements were blessed by the church,” Essop noted in the ruling. “The Act includes permanent life partners as spouses.”
As a result, Essop ruled that the board of the Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund had exercised its discretion properly and dismissed the brother’s complaint.
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.