Lebogang Mogashoa, Pension Funds Adjudicator
A pension fund has been left red‑faced after two serious failures shattered confidence in its death benefit distribution governance, following investigations by the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
First, the Becsa Provident Fund paid incorrect amounts to beneficiaries – only fixing a shortfall of more than R325 000 after the beneficiaries themselves flagged the mistake.
Then, in an even more troubling lapse, the fund allocated a portion of the death benefit to a woman presented as the deceased’s cohabiting partner. The alleged cohabiting partner later reneged on claims that she was the deceased’s cohabiting partner and disclosed that she had in fact been persuaded by a friend to lodge the false claim, lured by the prospect of quick money.
At the heart of these missteps lies a deeper concern: insufficient investigation of the claims of alleged cohabitation between the deceased and the alleged cohabiting partner.
The complaint was brought before the Adjudicator Lebogang Mogashoa by the deceased’s mother, after her son passed away on 29 August 2022. A death benefit of R2 069 241.89 became available for allocation to beneficiaries after a tax deduction of R709 121.03 and inclusion of R121 082.26 in interest.
On 18 April 2024, the board resolved to allocate the benefit as follows: 30% (R543 913.19) each to the deceased’s parents and sister, and 10% (R181 304.40) to the alleged cohabiting partner. But when payments were made in November 2023, each family member received only R512 399.19. The family disputed this, arguing that after SARS deductions, R1 948 159.63 remained to be distributed – equivalent to R649 386.54 per beneficiary.
Only after persistent questioning and direct engagement with SARS did the fund pay an additional R325 180.14 (R108 393.38 each). Even then, the family maintained that R85 841.28 remained outstanding.
The fund claimed part of the benefit had been allocated to the alleged cohabiting partner of the deceased, whose identity the fund had not disclosed to the family. The complainant rejected the claim that the deceased cohabited with the alleged partner. She submitted that the cohabitation allegations were untrue, and that she was willing to provide witnesses, including individuals who lived with the deceased and his close friends, to refute the claim of the alleged cohabitation.
The fund countered that the cohabiting partner had deposed to an affidavit in which she indicated that she was in a relationship with the deceased, resided with him and was financially depended on him as she was unemployed. The fund also explained that it received an additional affidavit from the deceased’s landlord and friend, who corroborated the cohabiting partner’s claims. It also submitted that the complainant resided in the North West Province, whereas the deceased resided in Middelburg at the time of his death and, therefore, the complainant would not have direct knowledge of his living arrangements in Middelburg, hence her contention that the deceased did not have a cohabiting partner could not be accepted as fact.
Faced with these mutually destructive claims, the Adjudicator joined the alleged cohabiting partner as a party to the proceedings and sent her legal correspondence requiring her comment on the allegations. It was at this point that the so‑called cohabiting partner herself confessed and admitted that she had never met the deceased and was never in a relationship with him.
She told the Adjudicator that she had been approached by a friend who told her that there was a sickly man in hospital and she could help her get fast cash in respect of the sickly man. She explained how the friend allegedly requested her to depose to an affidavit stating that she was the deceased’s girlfriend, provide her identity document copy and benefit statement, after which the friend would do the rest. She did as requested by the friend. However, she now feared she might be implicated in fraud and confirmed she had not received any proceeds.
After the alleged cohabiting partner’s response was sent to the fund for a response, on 18 November 2025, the fund submitted it would escalate the matter to its internal audit department as this case now had an element of fraud and criminality.
In its determination, the Adjudicator said the primary purpose of section 37C is to serve a social purpose by protecting those who were financially dependent on the deceased during his lifetime.
“The fund accepted the alleged cohabiting partner as a dependent by merely relying on affidavits without taking adequate steps to verify the information therein. This matter is a classic example of the dangers of blindly relying on affidavit without employing any other reasonable methods to verify and authenticate the allegations therein.
“The Adjudicator is satisfied that the board failed to properly investigate the matter. Thus, the fund must be held accountable for its failure to ensure that the deceased’s benefit is paid to the correct beneficiaries,” the Adjudicator said.
He ordered the board’s decision regarding the distribution of the deceased’s death benefit to be set aside. The fund was ordered to conduct an investigation and to identify the deceased’s beneficiaries, taking into account the findings of this determination, and to allocate and distribute the death benefit thereafter.
ENDS
