A life partner has been awarded a share of an R8.3m death benefit after the Pension Funds Adjudicator dismissed a challenge by the deceased man’s sister to the retirement fund’s allocation.

In May 2024, a member of the Corporate Selection Umbrella Retirement Fund died, leaving behind a death benefit of more than R8.3m, which sparked a bitter contest between his sister and a woman known as ‘M’, whom the fund described as his ‘life partner’.

The trustees had allocated the R8 330 764.70 benefit as follows: 45% to the sister; 45% to the life partner and 5% each to his niece and nephew.

The deceased’s sister and two children opposed the fund’s decision to classify ‘M’ as the deceased’s permanent life partner.

The sister and her children argued that the deceased had nominated her to receive 100% of the benefit back in 2005, and that ‘M’ did not qualify as a permanent life partner.

Contested

They claimed the trustees failed to provide full reasons, disclose evidence or properly interrogate competing versions. Their submissions painted ‘M’ as a friend or colleague rather than a romantic partner.

They argued on the following:

• No shared household: The deceased maintained his own residence and witnesses confirmed there was no cohabitation.
• No financial interdependence: No joint accounts, shared expenses or financial support existed. Bank statements showed no financial relationship.
• No romantic commitment: The deceased never referred to ‘M’ as a partner or spouse, and she was not included in his will or nominated as a beneficiary.

They further insisted that WhatsApp messages showed communication but not intimacy, and that claims made by ‘M’ were unsupported by independent evidence.

Living together

The fund countered with a different narrative.

It submitted that ‘M’ had been in a relationship with the deceased for approximately 20 years, and that they had cohabited in his Sandton home from July 2023 until his death. Before that, they alternated between her Rivonia residence and his own house.

The fund also submitted that witnesses described them as ‘living together’ in a romantic relationship and the deceased allegedly assumed a paternal role towards the son of ‘M’, and provided consistent financial support averaging R15 000 per month.

The fund emphasised that ‘M’ was referred to as the deceased’s life partner by his employer and even by the rabbi at his funeral.

The sister, meanwhile, was nominated in 2005 as the sole beneficiary. She was also the executrix of the deceased’s estate, worth R5.8m, and the sole heir.

The fund acknowledged that the deceased provided her with financial support of around R12 000 a month. However, the fund also noted that the sister had benefited substantially from the estate, the sale of the family home and risk policies.

Pension law

It argued that while she was a factual dependant, ‘M’ qualified as a legal dependant under the amended definition of ‘spouse’ in pension law, which includes permanent life partners.

The fund relied on section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, which requires trustees to distribute death benefits equitably among dependants, regardless of nominations or wills.

The complainants pressed the issue of procedural fairness.

The sister and her children argued that the trustees failed to comply with the constitutional principle of audi alteram partem (hear the other side).

They pointed out that material relied upon (such as alleged co-ownership of property and financial support claims) was never disclosed to them. They further claimed that independent evidence from neutral witnesses was sidelined, while partisan affidavits from the relatives of ‘M’ were preferred.

The preliminary allocation gave ‘M’ 65%, later reduced to 45%, with the niece and nephew added, at 5% each. The complainants argued that this reconsideration required clear reasoning, which was absent.

Findings

They further argued that the fund added new reasons to defend its decision after the fact, rather than relying on the reasons it originally gave.

‘M’, however, rejected the allegations against her.

She insisted that her relationship with the deceased spanned 25 years, marked by shared living arrangements, mutual support and retirement planning.

‘M’ claimed to have made personal sacrifices, including changing employment at his request, and emphasised that her involvement was motivated by genuine commitment rather than financial gain.

She maintained that she met the criteria of a permanent life partner and would continue to assert her rights.

The Pension Funds Adjudicator, Lebogang Mogashoa, found that the deceased’s 2005 nomination of his sister, while a relevant factor, was not binding on the fund under section 37C.

“Trustees must distribute benefits equitably among dependants, regardless of nominations or wills,” he said.

Mogashoa said the complainants argued that ‘M’ could not be recognised as the deceased’s permanent life partner because they lived separately. However, he said this argument was misplaced, as living together is relevant but not the deciding factor.

“Our law recognises that many marriages, unions and permanent life partnerships in South Africa do not involve continuous co-residence, often due to economic, employment or personal circumstances. Such arrangements do not, without more, negate the existence of a permanent life partnership,” he explained.

“What is required is proof of a permanent conjugal relationship, coupled with steps evidencing an intention to share their lives. Such steps may include plans to formalise the relationship through marriage or civil union,” said Mogashoa.

Funds allocation upheld

He said the Constitutional Court had identified a range of considerations relevant to determining the existence of a permanent life partnership. This included the duration of the relationship, whether the parties shared a common abode, the extent of shared expenses, financial support, the perception of family and friends, provision for one another in pension and related benefits and whether the parties publicly associated as an intimate couple.

“The law thus rejects rigid or formalistic requirements. Continuous cohabitation is not essential, nor is the existence of joint financial accounts. Financial dependency may be established through indirect forms of support. The inquiry is fact-specific and must be resolved on the probabilities,” he said.

Mogashoa said he was satisfied that the conclusion reached – that ‘M’ qualified as a permanent life partner – was supported by multiple corroborating sources of evidence, and not by a single unsubstantiated allegation.

He upheld the fund’s allocation and dismissed the complaint.

For general enquiries or to lodge a complaint, visit www.pfa.org.za, call 012 346 1738, Toll-free 0800 74 44 44 or email enquiries@pfa.org.za

Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel.

Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal.