A woman nominated by her late friend to receive the full proceeds of a death benefit worth more than R2.64 million failed in her attempt to overturn a decision awarding 40% of the benefit to the deceased’s intellectually impaired sister.
The Pension Funds Adjudicator dismissed a complaint brought by HP, who challenged the Ninety One Retirement Annuity Fund’s decision to allocate 60% of the death benefit to her and 40% to Debra de Jager, the late member’s sister.
The dispute arose after CA’s death in August 2022, making a death benefit of more than R2.6 million available for distribution. Initially, the fund awarded the entire benefit to HP, but the Pension Funds Adjudicator overturned that decision in January 2025 after CA’s sister, DB, complained that the fund failed to properly investigate whether she was financially dependent on the deceased.
Following the earlier ruling, the fund conducted a fresh investigation and concluded that DB should receive 40% of the benefit, while HP should receive the remaining 60%.
HP, who had lived with the deceased since 2005, argued that she had been nominated as the sole beneficiary in the deceased’s will and beneficiary nomination. She maintained that she had covered most of the household expenses for years because the deceased’s income had declined and that she had also financially supported the deceased’s parents.
She further contended that DB, who moved into the household in 2018, was financially independent through her SASSA old-age grant, pension income, and inheritance.
According to HP, DB received only limited assistance with incidental expenses, and the accommodation and meals provided in the shared household did not amount to financial dependency under the Pension Funds Act.
In addition, she told the adjudicator that she had already paid DB R700,000 in December 2024 and argued that this payment should have been deducted from DB’s share of the pension benefit if the allocation was allowed to stand. She accused the fund of conducting an inadequate investigation, failing to obtain financial records, and wrongly concluding that the sister was financially dependent on the deceased.
The retirement fund defended its decision, saying it had complied with the previous determination by carrying out a thorough investigation. It found that although HP paid most of the household expenses, DB relied on both the deceased and HP for accommodation, food, and living expenses.
The fund also established that DB suffers from a moderate intellectual disability requiring daily assistance and that she would probably need assisted living in the future. While DB received income from pensions, a social grant, and investments, the fund concluded that her existing resources would not adequately cover her future care and living costs.
In considering the complaint, the adjudicator said the central question was whether the fund had exercised its discretion properly when making what it regarded as an equitable distribution of the death benefit.
The determination reiterated that the intention of the Pension Funds Act is to protect those who were financially dependent on a deceased member rather than simply to give effect to the deceased’s nomination. The adjudicator noted that while beneficiary nominations are relevant, they merely serve as a guide and cannot override the board’s duty to make an equitable allocation after considering all relevant factors.
The adjudicator also rejected HP’s argument that DB was never dependent on the deceased. It found that HP’s own submissions showed that the three women had lived together and contributed to the household according to their respective means, confirming a relationship of interdependence in which DB depended on the deceased for accommodation and other support.
The adjudicator further ruled that HP was not entitled to share in the interest added to DB’s allocation. It accepted the fund’s explanation that the interest merely placed DB in the position she would have occupied had she been included in the original allocation and that allowing HP to share in that interest would unjustly enrich her.
Ultimately, the adjudicator found no evidence that the fund had ignored relevant considerations or improperly exercised its discretion.
IOL News
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.