A woman has managed to overturn a decision made by the Eskom pension fund after allocating funds to her late husband’s girlfriend.

Z Madlala was a member of Eskom Pension and Provident Fund until his passing in December 2022. He was married to LA Magoso.

After his death, R560,000 became available for his beneficiaries. Although Madlala had nominated his wife to receive 80% of his pension fund, the Eskom pension fund board decided to allocate Magoso 28%.

The money was further shared among Magoso’s five children, one of Madlala’s children from a previous relationship, and his girlfriend, Eslina Ngomane who also received 28%.

Aggrieved by the decision, Magoso approached the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) seeking to overturn Eskom’s decision.

In her appeal to the PFA, Magoso highlighted that Ngomane was unknown to the Madlala family and requested an investigation into the legitimacy of the beneficiary nomination form. Given that this form was completed just eight months before Madlala’s death, during a period when he was unwell, she raised doubts over its validity.

The Eskom provident fund stated that its decision was based on three claims received after Madlala’s death: one from Magoso on behalf of herself and her five children with the deceased, a second from Ngomane, and a third from Madlala’s other three children.

The fund submitted that in determining whether or not to include Ngomane, the board considered the fact that she was 50, she was unemployed at the time of the investigation, Madlala nominated her to receive 10% of the death benefit, and she also stated in an affidavit that she was dependent on Madlala for maintenance and support.

The fund stated that considering her age, her earning potential was very slim and she had more than 15 years before she could qualify to receive an old age grant. Furthermore, she qualified as the deceased’s factual dependent, and it was necessary to consider her in the allocation of the death benefit.

In determining the life partnership between the deceased and Ngomane, the fund’s board considered their relationship, which began in 2014. They had cohabited in Witbank, Mpumalanga, since the start of their relationship and shared household expenses.

Moreover, in November 2019, Madlala paid a portion of lobola to the Ngomane family. This was confirmed by a lobola letter submitted to the fund by Ngomane.

It was established that the deceased lived in Witbank with Ngomane while Magoso lived in KwaZulu-Natal while maintaining a long-distance relationship with her husband.

Moreover, the pension fund submitted that Ngomane was identified as the life-partner and not the customary widow of the deceased. It was stated that in the event that Magoso seeks to question the validity of the customary union, she may refer a case at the High Court. Based on the fraud allegation relating to the validity of the customary union, Magoso was advised to refer the matter to the South African Police Service (SAPS) for further investigation.

The adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, reviewed the circumstances surrounding the case and found the board’s decision lacking in thoroughness. She called into question whether the board had adequately considered all relevant factors—including the relationship dynamics and the deceased’s clear intention regarding his beneficiaries

“The board must weigh the various factors in arriving at its decision. In this instance, considering the amount available for allocation, which is not significant, the number of beneficiaries, their ages, their income-earning potential, their relationship with the deceased, and the wishes of the deceased, the adjudicator is not satisfied that the board considered all the relevant factors,” said Lukhaimane.

Consequently, she set aside the pension fund’s initial decision, instructing the board to reevaluate the case while re-examining its considerations moving forward. 

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News

Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel. 

Source link