Marriage alone does not guarantee a share of a pension fund death benefit; financial dependency on the deceased remains the decisive factor. This was the central finding of a determination by the Pension Funds Adjudicator following a complaint by a customary wife who was excluded from the allocation of her late husband’s lump-sum death benefit.
The complaint arose after the death of an Eskom Pension and Provident Fund member in July 2023, when a lump-sum death benefit of R882 984 became available for distribution among his dependants and nominees.
After investigating the matter, the fund’s board of management resolved to allocate the benefit as follows: 18% to a 51-year-old life partner; 30% to a son in the first household; 25% to a daughter in the second household; and 9% to each of three daughters from the third household.
The complainant submitted that she had been customarily married to the deceased until 2021, when the parties separated and divorce proceedings were initiated. She said the divorce had not been finalised at the time of the member’s death. She further submitted that the fund had advised her she was not entitled to a share of the death benefit because the deceased did not maintain her at the date of his death.
According to the complainant, this approach was incorrect. She argued that, as the deceased’s wife at the date of his death, she should have been considered for a portion of the death benefit and should not have been treated as a girlfriend or former partner.
In its response, the fund emphasised the distinction between a lump-sum death benefit and a monthly spouse’s pension, which are governed by different provisions of its rules. It explained that although a surviving spouse may qualify for a spouse’s pension, entitlement to a death benefit depends primarily on financial dependency at the time of death.
The fund stated its rules provide for a widow’s pension to be paid to multiple spouses. Where a deceased member is survived by more than one spouse, each spouse is entitled to an equal share of 60% of the pension the member would have received at retirement. In practice, however, this does not mean that marriage alone entitles a spouse to a portion of the lump-sum death benefit.
At the time of the fund’s investigation, the complainant had indicated that she and the deceased had been separated since 2021, were no longer living together, and were in the process of divorcing. She also confirmed that she was not financially dependent on the deceased for maintenance at the date of his death, and he provided support only for their child. The fund further noted she had been removed as a beneficiary from the deceased’s medical scheme.
On this basis, the fund concluded that the complainant did not qualify as a spouse for purposes of the death benefit under the rules applicable at the time of the investigation.
Nearly two years later, in June 2025, the fund received a copy of the complainant’s customary marriage certificate, which had been registered posthumously. As a result, she qualified for and began receiving a monthly spouse’s pension of R4 302.49.
However, the fund maintained that the registration of the marriage certificate did not retrospectively entitle the complainant to a share of the lump-sum death benefit. It argued its rules did not provide for a spouse to receive 50% or any fixed portion of the death benefit purely by virtue of marital status.
Lebogang Mogashoa, the Pension Funds Adjudicator, agreed. He found that, unlike the spouse’s pension, marriage was not a decisive factor in the allocation of a death benefit.
“The extent to which a dependant was dependent on the deceased is a significant factor to consider by the board when allocating the death benefit,” the Adjudicator said.
He noted that the deceased and the complainant had been separated since 2021 and had not lived together thereafter. The complainant had been removed from the deceased’s medical scheme and had confirmed to the fund that she was not financially dependent on him at the time of his death.
“Thus, although the complainant was customarily married to the deceased, she was not financially dependent on him at the date of his death. Therefore, she was not entitled to a portion of the death benefit,” Mogashoa said.
In dismissing the complaint, the Adjudicator was satisfied that the fund’s board had properly exercised its discretion in allocating the death benefit among the dependants.
