Older sister's claim dismissed in Sasol pension fund case.
Image: AI Generate
A dispute over the distribution of death benefits from the Sasol Pension Fund has ended with the Financial Services Tribunal dismissing an application by an older daughter who sought to overturn a determination by the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
The Tribunal confirmed that the fund acted lawfully when it paid the remaining benefits of the late pensioner solely to his minor daughter, concluding that no legal basis existed to interfere with the Adjudicator’s ruling.
The tribunal’s decision comes after Dayna Tendai Crow challenged the adjudicator’s earlier dismissal of her complaint and argued that she should have been included in the distribution of her late father’s death benefits.
The dispute traces back to the death of Crow’s father, a former Sasol employee who retired on ill-health grounds in 2008 and later received a disability pension from the Sasol Pension Fund until his passing in September 2019. At the time of his death, he was unmarried and survived by two daughters from different relationships: Crow, who was 27 years old, and Jade, who was 14.
Following his death, the fund began paying a monthly child pension to Jade. Crow believed that once her younger sister reached adulthood, any remaining balance of the death benefit would be shared between them. When Jade turned 18 in May 2023, Crow approached the fund seeking clarity on the remaining balance. The fund informed her that the death benefit would be paid to Jade alone.
Crow objected to the decision and lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. She argued that she was both a biological child and a dependant of the deceased and should therefore have been considered in the distribution of the death benefit.
The fund responded that its rules defined a “qualifying child” as an unmarried child financially dependent on the deceased and under specific age limits. Because Crow was 27 years old at the time of her father’s death, she did not meet the definition.
The adjudicator agreed with the fund’s interpretation. She found that the fund had applied its rules correctly and had not acted irrationally or unfairly. Importantly, she concluded that Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, which governs the distribution of lump-sum death benefits, did not apply because the benefit in question was a child’s pension governed by the fund’s rules. Crow’s complaint was therefore dismissed.
Unhappy with that outcome, Crow applied to the Financial Services Tribunal for reconsideration. She argued that the adjudicator had misinterpreted the fund rules and failed to consider that a group life cover benefit should have been distributed under Section 37C.
She also relied on fund communications and a tax certificate, which she believed showed that a lump-sum benefit existed and should have been shared between dependants.
The fund opposed the application, maintaining that no lump-sum benefit became available for distribution. It explained that the relevant rules provided for a child’s pension and for funds to be held in trust until the qualifying child reached majority.
Once Jade turned 18, the remaining amount was paid to her in accordance with the rules. The fund argued that Section 37C was irrelevant because the benefit was a pension payable to a qualifying child, not a lump-sum death benefit.
The tribunal examined whether the adjudicator had erred and whether any further benefits were payable to beneficiaries other than Jade. Central to the case was the classification of the benefit that remained after Jade reached adulthood.
The tribunal noted that if the payment had been a lump-sum death benefit, Section 37C would have required distribution among dependants. However, if the benefit was a child’s pension, it had to be paid according to the fund’s rules.
The tribunal found that the benefit was indeed a child’s pension. It emphasised that the Pension Funds Act specifically excludes pensions payable to a spouse or child from Section 37C. Because the fund rules clearly defined who qualified as a child beneficiary, and Crow did not meet that definition, the fund had no authority to allocate the benefit to her.
Although the tribunal acknowledged that the fund had given inconsistent explanations about the nature of the benefit during earlier communications, it stressed that dissatisfaction with those explanations did not entitle Crow to a benefit for which she did not qualify under the rules.
After reviewing the full record, the tribunal concluded that the adjudicator’s determination was consistent with both the fund’s rules and the Pension Funds Act. Crow had not shown any material misdirection, irregularity, or legal error that would justify interference.
The tribunal therefore dismissed the application for reconsideration and confirmed the adjudicator’s determination, bringing the long-running dispute to an end.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News