A man who was frustrated after the University of South Africa (UNISA) retirement fund stopped making monthly payments when his partner died, sought relief at the Financial Services Tribunal (FST).
Image: File Photo
A man who was frustrated after the University of South Africa (UNISA) retirement fund stopped making monthly payments when his partner died, sought relief at the Financial Services Tribunal (FST).
Sarel Petru Du Plessis was in a relationship with Daniel Wilhelmus Coetzee who was employed by Unisa until he retired in March 2019.
Upon his retirement, he enjoyed an in-fund annuity until his death in April 2023.
Before his retirement, Coetzee took over R600,000 as a cash lump sum payment and channeled over R5,7 million in an in-fund annuity. An in-fund annuity is when retirement savings remain invested within your retirement fund, and the fund itself provides you with a monthly pension payment.
For spouse pension, Coetzee nominated zero percent and said he was not married. Following his death, the retirement fund stopped all pension payments.
However, Du Plessis maintained that he and the deceased were life partners and that, as a result, he was a qualifying spouse and should have enjoyed a spouse's pension.
Feeling aggrieved by the non-payment, he laid a complaint with the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) in April 2024. In the complaint to the adjudicator, he complained that Unisa retirement fund had not complied with its own rules.
The PFA made a ruling in September 2024, and it was satisfied with the retirement fund ruling. The adjudicator reiterated that the retirement fund rules were supreme and binding on all its officials, members, shareholders, beneficiaries, and anyone claiming from the fund.
Consequently, Du Plessis's application was dismissed, and he approached the FST for reconsideration.
He argued that Coetzee's election of a zero percent spouse's pension was invalid without his consent as a qualifying spouse. He also said there was an error, at least, by Coetzee that no provision was made for him as a qualified spouse.
The retirement fund maintained that it relied on assertions made by Coetzee that he was unmarried, and it did not have to go further to accept the veracity of his assertion.
It was maintained that no error was committed as there was evidence of consistency in the documents completed by the deceased. Put differently, the fund maintains that the election made by Coetzee was consistent with his wishes, the consequences of which he fully appreciated.
Looking at the evidence, the FST said it was clear that the deceased made an election, and the retirement fund was entitled to accept him at his word. It was also said the deceased enjoyed the benefits under that election.
As a result, the tribunal said it can't reverse the consequences of the deceased's decisions.
The application for reconsideration was dismissed.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL News
Related Topics:
