A disgruntled man took the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) to the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) after he was excluded from his late brother’s over R4 million pension fund.
Madisha Lucas Malaka was aggrieved after he was excluded from Louis Malaka’s death benefit which primarily went to his long-term girlfriend, 62-year-old Caroline Malefu Chokoe.
Meanwhile, Louis’s 46-year-old daughter, Yvette Kunene, was awarded R120,000 due to her unemployment and dependency on her father’s financial support.
Madisha maintained that he and the deceased agreed on their shared responsibilities toward each other’s families and that, in any event, he was the nominated beneficiary and should have received the death benefit.
He further argued that the PFA ignored the agreement he had with his brother and took into account irrelevant factors while ignoring relevant factors.
Louis died in December 2022 and left over R4.1 million on his pension fund.
After realising that he was not a beneficiary, Madisha laid a complaint with the PFA in February 2024 and a determination dismissing his complaint was handed down in June the same year.
Unrelenting, he sought relief at the FST in September 2024.
The FST looked at the evidence which assisted the PFA to come to its conclusion when dispensing the funds.
Before releasing the funds, the PFA identified six potential dependants, Louis’s three children, Kunene, Mpho Palesa Malaka, Thuto Malaka, his long-term partner, Chokoe, his ex-wife, Emily Pinky Malaka, and his brother, Madisha.
Even though Louis had nominated Madisha to receive the death benefit, it was established that the girlfriend, Chokoe, and his daughter, Kunene, were his dependants whose needs had not been fulfilled.
The PFA’s investigations determined that Chokoe was unemployed and had been living with the deceased since 2008.
During their years together, Louis covered all the expenses. She also inherited three properties generating approximately R33,000 monthly. She also pays a monthly rental of R13,500.
From his children, Kunene, the only child who received a fraction from the pension fund, suffers from arthritis and was financially reliant on her father, receiving R10,000 every month.
Mpho, 36, was an unemployed pharmacist who lived with the deceased but moved in with her mother after her father’s death.
Thuto, 40, was a manager who was independent and did not live with his father.
Lastly, his ex-wife, Emily, confirmed that she was not financially dependent the deceased.
Although Madisha’s case hinged upon their familial bond, the PFA argued that he was not financially dependent on his brother, and it was discovered that he received shares worth R1.5 million from his late brother’s estate.
In its verdict, the FST upheld the PFA’s decision, stating that it acted in accordance with the rules of the fund and relevant legislation. The tribunal acknowledged that, based on the facts laid before them, they could find no fault in the PFA’s reasoning
As a result, Madisha’s application for reconsideration was dismissed.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL
