The Johannesburg high court has dismissed an application by two unemployed sisters disputing a decision to allocate 100% of their late sister's death benefits to their elderly mother.
Siblings Thandazile Mbonambi and Thobekile Ngubane approached the court to seek a review and set aside the eJoburg Retirement Fund's decision to allocate death benefits of Hlengiwe Mbonambi to their mother Ntombi Mbonambi. The deceased had nominated her mother as the sole beneficiary for the death benefit from the fund amounting to just more than R4m.
Thandazile and Thobekile claimed they deserved an equal share as they were also depending on the deceased for financial support — an issue they could not produce enough evidence for except a bank statement showing R300 the deceased once sent to one of them.
Their brother did not claim dependency but supported the distribution of the death benefits to their mother.
When a member of a retirement fund dies before reaching retirement age, the lump sum benefit which becomes payable must be paid to the member’s dependants and/or nominees. The Pension Funds Act regulates the payment of these death benefits. The primary objective is to ensure those people who were dependent on the deceased member are not left destitute after his/her death, irrespective of whether the deceased was legally required to maintain them.
In this matter, the court heard the appointed fund administrator, Momentum, attended to the investigation on behalf of the fund into possible dependants of the deceased and obtained affidavits from them.
The applicants [two sisters] and their mother submitted affidavits to the investigator in support of their claims that they were dependent on the deceased.
The fund made the decision in August 2022. The primary reasons given for the allocation was that Ntombi was the mother and a legal dependent of the deceased member. As a pensioner, she was partially financially dependent on the deceased member and she had been nominated by the deceased to receive 100% of her death benefits in terms of a nomination of beneficiary form.
But the two sisters were aggrieved by this outcome.
Thandazile told the court the deceased assisted her financially during a period when she was unemployed in 2017. She said she was again unemployed as she had been retrenched in August 2021 and that she was living in the deceased’s house.
Thandazile stated she was a single mother and that her age made it difficult for her to find employment. She intended using the money to start a business. She also complained that her brother and mother had benefited disproportionately from their father and sister's estates and this inequity should be rectified by splitting the death benefit distribution equally between her, the second applicant and their mother.
Her sister Thobekile confirmed her sister's version of a close-knit family, with the three sisters being inseparable since childhood and supporting each other as adults, particularly when one of them was going through a hard time.
Thobekile claimed when her husband lost his job in 2020, the deceased assisted them with money and groceries and contributed towards her children’s school fees. She accused their brother of improper conduct in the administration of their father’s deceased estate and of taking control over their mother's bank accounts. She said she was unemployed.
However, their brother told the court their mother was heavily dependent on the deceased for support. She lived with the deceased and was financially dependent on her. He, however, disputed the claims that his siblings were dependent on the deceased. He said Thandazile was employed in a senior position and Thobekile was employable but chose not to work as her husband supported her.
He further said their mother needed to purchase a retirement unit in an assisted living facility and to have sufficient funds to support her medical and other needs for the remainder of her lifetime.
The fund said the sisters failed to provide evidence to support their claims that they were financially dependent on the deceased, besides a bank statement showing a single transfer of R300 from the deceased. It said no other documentary evidence of money transfers from the deceased to either of the applicants was produced.
But the sisters argued that the deceased would give them cash or buy them groceries.
The court sided with the fund and dismissed the application with costs.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.