The Financial Services Tribunal has set aside a determination by the Pension Funds Adjudicator, finding that her conclusion that a deceased member’s mother was not a factual dependant was “not merely wrong” but “unreasonable and unsustainable in law”.
In a decision handed down on 13 August 2026, the Tribunal found that the Adjudicator applied an unreasonable evidentiary standard, accepted contested allegations without “investigation, corroboration, or scrutiny”, shifted the basis of her inquiry after the fund supplied the evidence she had requested, and did not address the material evidence placed before her.
Reason for the complaint
Appanna Gandhi Sanassyi, a member of the Illovo Sugar Provident Fund, died on 13 January 2021. On 13 December 2021, the fund’s board allocated the net death benefit of R5 263 655 among three beneficiaries: 65% to his widow, Dorothy Divyashanty Sanassyi; 25% to his son, Jemuel Jerial Sanassyi; and 10% to his elderly mother, Marriemall Appana, whom the fund found to have been financially dependent on him.
Dorothy Sanassyi (first respondent) lodged a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator (second respondent), challenging the allocation to Appana. She contended that the assistance her husband had provided to his mother was merely administrative rather than financial. She also alleged that Jessy, the deceased’s sister and Appana’s caregiver, had fraudulently inflated Appana’s expenses.
Three determinations over more than three years
The adjudication process spanned more than three years and produced three determinations, each of which set aside the fund’s 10% allocation to the deceased’s mother.
In the first determination, the Adjudicator found that the fund had not produced sufficient evidence of dependency. She considered the affidavits on which it relied to be unsupported by documentary proof and directed the fund to conduct a fresh investigation.
The Fund reinvestigated and reached the same conclusion. It submitted an income-and-expenditure analysis setting out the mother’s income, expenses, and the shortfall that had to be met from another source.
In her second determination, the Adjudicator again set aside the allocation. She found that the analysis was not supported by proof of the expenses. Although she acknowledged that “some form of support must have existed” because the mother’s income could not account for all her expenditure, she declined to find that dependency had been established and directed the fund to investigate again.
In response, the fund supplied municipal rate statements, electricity and water bills, and other documentary evidence of the mother’s living expenses. However, the Adjudicator again set aside the allocation. She found that the fund had demonstrated the mother’s need for financial support but had not proved that the deceased “regularly provided” it.
She also disregarded the municipal statements because they were addressed to the deceased’s late father and found the evidence provided by Jessy insufficient without corroborating documentation.
It was this third determination, issued on 5 September 2025, that came before the Tribunal for reconsideration following an application by the Illovo Sugar Provident Fund.
The test for factual dependency
The Tribunal said the test for factual dependency has two elements: the person must have required financial support from the deceased member, and the member must have regularly provided that support.
It found that Appana’s need for financial support had been established on a balance of probabilities. She was elderly and illiterate, was unable to manage her own financial affairs, and had insufficient income to cover essential expenses such as rates, electricity, water, groceries, medication, and transport. The fund’s analysis showed a shortfall between her income and expenses.
The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicator had herself acknowledged in the second determination that “some form of support must have existed” because Appana’s income could not account for all her expenditure.
It found that the second element, regular provision of support, had also been established. Jessy’s affidavits stated that the deceased paid Appana’s municipal and utility accounts, bought groceries, and paid for medical care and transport.
The fund also produced documents showing the recurring household expenses, an analysis showing that Appana’s income could not meet them, and a report by an independent investigator confirming that she was financially and practically dependent on her son.
‘Familial, not commercial’
The Adjudicator found that regular support had not been proved because the fund had not produced formal receipts or other documentation of each payment the deceased made on Appana’s behalf.
The Tribunal said this approach was “both unreasonable and contrary to established precedent”.
“An elderly illiterate woman does not keep formal accounting records. Her son, managing her affairs on her behalf, does not systematically issue receipts to himself. The relationship is familial, not commercial,” it said.
“To demand formal receipts for an 84-year-old mother’s household expenses is to apply an evidentiary standard that is manifestly unreasonable and that flies in the face of social reality.”
The Tribunal said evidentiary standards must take account of the informal and often undocumented nature of family-support arrangements. Corroborated affidavits, documents showing household expenses, and circumstantial evidence could be considered together in determining whether dependency had been established.
It concluded: “A reasonable Adjudicator, examining this body of evidence, could only conclude that the deceased regularly provided financial support to his mother.”
Municipal statements wrongly disregarded
The Tribunal also rejected the Adjudicator’s treatment of the municipal rate statements, which she had disregarded because they were addressed to the deceased’s late father rather than to the deceased member.
“This reasoning is a misdirection in law and fact,” the Tribunal said.
The relevant question was not whose name appeared on the account, but whether Appana incurred the household expenses and whether the deceased funded them. The statements established the expenses associated with the property Appana occupied and had to be considered together with the evidence that her son paid them.
“The Adjudicator’s fixation on whose name appeared on the rate statements caused her to overlook the substance: the deceased was paying for his mother’s housing and utilities,” the Tribunal said. “This is precisely the kind of support that section 37C contemplates.”
Prospective dependency overlooked
The Tribunal found that the Adjudicator had also failed to consider prospective dependency as an alternative basis for finding that Appana was a dependant.
Prospective dependency concerned the likelihood that Appana would have required and received financial support from her son in future had he not died. The Tribunal considered her age, illiteracy, fixed income, ongoing living expenses, and inability to become financially independent.
“In the case of an 84-year-old illiterate woman, prospective dependency is not merely probable, it is inevitable,” it said.
The Tribunal found that this aspect had been “entirely overlooked” by the Adjudicator and was independently sufficient to sustain a finding of dependency for purposes of section 37C of the Pension Funds Act (PFA).
Duty to uncover the facts
The Tribunal’s criticisms extended beyond the Adjudicator’s substantive assessment of the evidence to the procedure by which she reached her conclusion.
Section 30J of the PFA permits the Adjudicator to adopt an inquisitorial procedure when investigating a complaint. The Tribunal said this role required more than passively choosing between the competing versions presented by the parties.
“An inquisitorial function requires the Adjudicator to act as an active seeker of facts,” it said.
The Adjudicator was expected to test the credibility of submissions, request corroborating evidence where necessary, join relevant and available witnesses to the proceedings, and reach a conclusion based on a holistic assessment of the evidence.
“The Adjudicator’s duty is to uncover the truth, not merely to referee a passive exchange of assertions.”
The Tribunal criticised the Adjudicator for accepting Sanassyi’s allegations and using them to discount Jessy’s evidence without first testing them.
The fraud allegation, in particular, was among the serious accusations that, the Tribunal said, would have justified an investigation, a request for documentary proof, or an examination of Jessy’s testimony under oath. Instead, the Tribunal found, the Adjudicator accepted Sanassyi’s version without testing it against the fund’s analysis, the utility bills, and Jessy’s testimony.
“An inquisitorial Adjudicator does not passively accept uncorroborated assertions, particularly when those assertions contradict supporting documentary evidence,” it said.
‘Moving of the goalpost’
The Tribunal found that the basis on which the fund’s evidence was assessed changed over the three determinations.
In the first determination, the fund was told that the evidence of dependency was insufficient. In the second, the Adjudicator specifically identified the lack of proof of Appana’s expenses as the evidentiary gap. But when the fund provided the municipal statements, electricity and water accounts, and other documents she had requested, the Tribunal found that, instead of evaluating the evidence, the Adjudicator shifted the basis of the inquiry.
The focus moved to whether the deceased had regularly provided support, and the Adjudicator found that this had not been proved while disregarding the documents supplied in response to her earlier direction.
“This pattern of conduct amounts to a moving of the goalpost,” the Tribunal said. “The fund was never given a fair opportunity to satisfy a consistent standard. This is procedurally unfair.”
Material evidence not addressed
The Tribunal separately found that the third determination did not address the fund’s income-and-expenditure analysis, the utility bills, Jessy’s affidavits, the independent investigator’s report, or correspondence from Jessy.
The determination did not show that this evidence had been considered or explain why it had been rejected.
“An Adjudicator who fails to address material evidence placed before her in any way, not even to explain why it is being rejected, falls short of the minimum standard of a fair hearing,” the Tribunal said.
Matter remitted for quantification
During the hearing, the fund conceded it had not independently verified the calculations made by its administrator, NBC Holdings (third respondent), in determining the amounts paid to or withheld from Appana’s 10% allocation. It had relied entirely on the administrator’s calculations.
The Tribunal said this concession had important consequences for the remedy. Although it found that Appana was a dependant and upheld the fund’s 10% allocation, it could not determine “with confidence” the amount still payable to her estate without further investigation. It said the calculations would need to be audited or verified.
The Tribunal granted the fund’s application for reconsideration and set aside the Adjudicator’s determination of 5 September 2025. It remitted the matter to the Adjudicator solely for the purpose of determining and quantifying the actual amount payable to Appana’s estate.
