A dispute over an R834,000 pension death benefit — and whether a deceased woman’s long-term partner could be treated as her “spouse” despite the absence of a registered marriage — has been settled by the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator, which has dismissed the complaint brought by the woman’s brother.
In a determination handed down by Deputy Pension Funds Adjudicator Naheem Essop, the adjudicator 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, identified only as GB. The decision came despite objections from the family, who maintained that the couple was never legally married and that a church ceremony they had witnessed amounted only to a religious blessing rather than a marriage recognised by the state.
The matter stems from the death of CD in 2020. At the time of her death, she was a member of the Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund, which she had joined in March 2007. The size of the benefit — a substantial lump-sum payment of R834,000 — and the fact that she had not nominated any individual beneficiaries for the fund benefit meant the trustees were required to follow the strict distribution rules set out in Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act.
Those provisions are designed to prevent pension death benefits from being treated like ordinary inheritances, and they impose a duty on trustees to identify and trace dependants, then distribute benefits in an equitable manner to both legal dependants and factual dependants. In this case, CD’s sole nominated beneficiary was her estate, placing the distribution firmly within Section 37C — and triggering the trustee investigation that later became the focus of her brother’s complaint.
The complainant, JD, lodged his complaint with the adjudicator in September 2023, nearly three years after his sister’s death. His concerns, as set out in submissions, were twofold: he alleged poor communication from the fund and an unreasonable delay in distributing the money; and he disputed the fund’s ultimate decision to allocate the full benefit to GB.
JD’s objections were rooted in the family’s belief that GB had no legal standing to inherit the pension benefit as a spouse. According to JD, the deceased and GB were never legally married and their marriage was not registered with the Department of Home Affairs. He argued the family had attended a ceremony that was explicitly understood to be a religious “blessing” for the couple to live together — not a legally binding marriage.
JD further argued that GB was not financially dependent on CD and therefore should not have been treated as a dependant under the Pension Funds Act’s distribution regime. He also claimed GB had already received payouts from the deceased’s other policies, suggesting that granting him the full pension benefit was neither fair nor justified.
The Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund, however, presented a different picture: one of a lengthy and complex investigation that began soon after the death and involved efforts to confirm CD’s living arrangements, determine whether she had children, and trace potential dependants.
The fund said it received notification of CD’s death in late December 2020 and then spent the next several years trying to establish key facts relevant to Section 37C: whether she had any children; whether any family members were financially dependent on her; and whether she lived with a partner who could qualify as a dependant. The timeline submitted by the fund showed what it described as hurdles in obtaining documentation needed to finalise the distribution.
A critical detail in the fund’s timeline is that in December 2021 the complainant, JD, confirmed to the fund that he was not financially dependent on his sister. He also stated that she had been living with GB — a point that later became central in the adjudicator’s assessment of whether the relationship met the test for a permanent life partnership under the Act.
When the fund eventually traced GB, he reportedly told the fund that he had not been financially dependent on CD. Even so, the trustees concluded that he qualified as a legal dependant and ultimately allocated the entire death benefit to him.
JD challenged that decision, but the fund’s board of trustees maintained its position, stating that it had exercised its discretion as required by law and had made an equitable allocation based on the facts it had established and the statutory framework.
In his determination, Essop considered the legal status of cohabiting partners in pension law and cited established precedents that clarify when a partner who is not legally married can still qualify as a dependant. In particular, the precedents recognise that cohabiting partners qualify as factual dependants provided they share a common household and are in a permanent relationship of mutual dependency, regardless of whether they have a marriage certificate.
The adjudicator found that, on the information before the trustees — including the brother’s own confirmation regarding the living arrangement — GB was properly identified as CD’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."
That finding proved decisive. Because JD had previously confirmed that his sister had no children and that he was not financially dependent on her, and because the trustees did not identify other dependants who qualified under Section 37C, the trustees’ allocation to GB stood.
Essop ultimately ruled that the Lifestyle Retirement Annuity Fund had acted within its legal mandate, that its trustees had exercised their discretion properly, and that there was no basis for the adjudicator to interfere with the outcome. He therefore dismissed JD’s complaint.
The determination is a reminder of the distinctive nature of pension death benefit law in South Africa: it is not governed by a will or family preference, but by a statutory process that prioritises dependency and equitable distribution. It also underscores that “spouse” in the pension context can extend beyond a registered marriage to include permanent life partnerships — a reality that often surprises families who assume formal marriage is the only pathway to recognition.
For pension fund members, the case also highlights a practical lesson: when nomination forms name only the estate, trustees are compelled to undertake Section 37C investigations that can take time, and outcomes may hinge on factual dependency and household arrangements rather than on family expectations. In this instance, those facts led trustees — and ultimately the adjudicator — to conclude that the full R834,000 benefit should go to the deceased’s life partner, even in the absence of a Home Affairs marriage record.
