Life partner fails to get share of R21.3m death benefit

A WOMAN who spent 17 years as a businessman’s life partner has failed in her bid to lay claim to a share in his death benefit totalling R21.3 million.

Fathima Sayed complained to the Pension Funds Adjudicator that the Old Mutual Superfund Provident Fund should not have paid Singh’s full death benefit to his two biological daughters alone.

Sayed was aggrieved that she had been excluded as a beneficiary, although she had received R7m from a life policy at Singh’s death; was bequeathed immovable property estimated at R1.7m and receives R35 000 monthly in terms of Singh’s will.

While a clause in the couple’s cohabitation agreement waived Sayed’s right to share in the pension, provident fund, investments, profit sharing or other retirement interests of Singh, and the agreement terminated upon the death of either party, Sayed said she was no longer bound by the cohabitation agreement after Singh’s passing, and as a result, she was entitled to any benefit that arose from his death.

In her determination, Pension Funds Adjudicator Muvhango Lukhaimane said it was the board’s responsibility, when dealing with the payment of death benefits, to conduct a thorough investigation to determine the beneficiaries, thereafter decide on an equitable distribution and finally to decide on the most appropriate mode of payment of the benefit payable.

She said the fund was correct in identifying Singh’s biological daughters as dependants of the deceased.

“The submissions indicate that the complainant received R7 000 000 from a life policy due to the deceased’s death and R35 000 per month from either the deceased’s estate or its executor. It is further unconfirmed whether or not the deceased’s estate is insolvent.

“However, if the estate is not insolvent, the complainant was also bequeathed immovable property estimated at R1 700 000. The complainant was placed in a better position due to the third-party payment she received. Furthermore, the complainant can still find employment. The facts indicate that even though she is 52 years old, she has prior work experience and a tertiary-level education. She still has an income-earning potential and can find employment. Therefore, the fund was correct in not allocating a portion of the death benefit to the complainant,” said Lukhaimane.

“In light of the above, I am satisfied that the board of the fund took into account relevant factors and did not abuse its discretion in the allocation of the deceased’s death benefit. The death benefit was properly allocated to the dependants of the deceased and there is no reason to set aside the board’s decision. Thus, the complaint cannot succeed and is, therefore, dismissed,” said Lukhaimane.