- Customary wife of deceased Eskom employee disputes fund’s recognition of alleged life partner.
- Board gave both women equal shares despite nomination form favouring wife.
- Adjudicator finds investigation inadequate, orders new decision within eight weeks.
When LA Magoso buried her husband, a long-serving Eskom employee, she thought her grief would be eased by the support due to her and their children from his pension fund.
But months later, she was blindsided when the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund informed her that a woman she had never met, allegedly her husband’s “life partner”, would receive the same share of the death benefit as she would.
According to the board’s decision, both Magoso and this woman, Eslina Ngomane, were allocated 28% each of the R560 160.00 death benefit. Their minor daughter received 30%, while five adult children shared the remaining 14%. What Magoso found most devastating was that the fund appeared to completely disregard her husband’s final wishes. Months before his passing, he had submitted a nomination form, allocating 80% of the benefit to her, his recognised customary wife.
Doubt over authenticity, questions about fairness
In her complaint to the Pension Funds Adjudicator, Magoso claimed that not only was she unaware of Ngomane, but her family had also never seen or heard of this woman. She alleged that the nomination form had possibly been falsified, pointing to her husband’s deteriorating health at the time it was submitted and raising questions about the authenticity of the signature.
Despite these concerns, the fund had accepted affidavits from Ngomane and her associates, claiming a life partnership and financial dependency. The board relied heavily on these statements, making no effort to speak to Magoso’s family or explore the claim of a fraudulent nomination. This, the Adjudicator found, was a serious failing.
“The board’s discretion was not properly exercised,” the Adjudicator wrote. “There is no evidence that the board weighed the factors outlined in section 37C of the Pension Funds Act or considered the nomination form’s contents in any meaningful way.”
Incomplete investigation and misapplication of law
In its determination, the Adjudicator criticised the board for treating both women the same, despite Magoso being the deceased’s customary law wife and named as his primary nominee. She was also receiving a spouse’s pension, as was Ngomane, yet this income stream was not factored in when splitting the lump sum. This raised red flags about whether the fund had acted fairly, or simply applied a “tick-box” approach.
Adding to the opacity, the fund cited confidentiality laws, specifically the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) and the Promotion of Access to Information Act (PAIA), to justify why it withheld key information from Magoso and the Adjudicator. But the ruling made clear this was not legally valid. The Adjudicator, as a public body, is entitled to access the full investigation record.
A second chance at justice for the family
In a strong rebuke, the Adjudicator ordered the fund to go back to the drawing board. It must reconsider the benefit distribution within eight weeks, this time considering the true nature of the relationships, the extent of financial dependency, the age and income potential of all parties, and the deceased’s stated intentions. Once a new decision is made, the board must notify all affected parties within two weeks.
Conviction.co.za
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel
