- The Financial Services Tribunal has set aside the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s decision and ordered a new hearing.
- The dispute centres on conflicting death benefit calculations and five missing annual benefit statements.
- The tribunal found the widow’s concerns about transparency and incomplete records were justified.
A widow’s fight for answers over her late husband’s Eskom pension will return to the Pension Funds Adjudicator, after the Financial Services Tribunal found that key questions about how the death benefit was calculated had not been properly addressed.
The tribunal delivered its decision on 22 September 2026 in favour of Lucia Maria Rodrigues Crawford, who challenged the Pension Funds Adjudicator’s dismissal of her complaint against the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund. The case focused on whether the fund had properly explained the calculation of the death benefit payable after her husband, Ian Crawford, passed away.
How the dispute began
Ian Crawford worked for Eskom from 4 July 1988 until his resignation on 31 July 2021. He became a deferred pensioner of the Eskom Pension and Provident Fund, and died on 1 April 2022.
The Fund’s Board awarded the full death benefit to Lucia Rodrigues Crawford as the sole beneficiary. She was first told the benefit was R5 080 092.53, a figure that included investment returns up to the date of payment.
Later, the fund found that investment interest had been wrongly included beyond the date of Ian Crawford’s death. After recalculating, the fund produced revised figures of R4 835 936.95 and R4 787 095.00 before finally paying out R4 782 506.87.
Rodrigues Crawford did not claim she was owed the higher amount. Instead, she argued that the fund never properly explained the changing figures or provided full records supporting the final payout.
Five years of pension records were missing
The widow told the tribunal that original benefit statements for 2013, 2016, 2019, 2021, and 2022 had never been provided, despite repeated requests. She said the absence of these statements made it impossible to verify the actuarial recalculation, and that the different figures from the Fund left her unsure which amount was correct.
The Eskom Pension and Provident Fund replied that the missing statements could not be retrieved. It said its rules allow for actuarial estimates when calculating benefits, and that annual benefit statements are only estimates, not guaranteed values.
Tribunal finds transparency concerns justified
The tribunal found the dispute was no longer about a higher payout, but about whether the assessment process was transparent and supported by reliable evidence.
Judge Xolisile Jennifer Khanyile, writing for the Tribunal with Adv S Mahabeer SC and P Maseko agreeing, wrote, “The applicant accepts that she is not entitled to undue payment when the first respondent made the error in calculating interest beyond the date of death…
“Her challenge is rooted in an apparent lack of transparency, conflicting figures, and the absence of authentic, reliable, and complete financial benefit statements for five years.”
It also found that an Excel spreadsheet prepared by the fund to explain the missing figures was not part of the official record, meaning the Pension Funds Adjudicator had ruled without all the material documents.
Fresh hearing ordered
The tribunal dismissed the fund’s preliminary objection and found Rodrigues Crawford’s complaint about the assessment justified.
In its final finding, the tribunal stated, “The applicant’s complaint aimed at the process of assessment undertaken by the respondents is warranted in the circumstances.”
The Pension Funds Adjudicator’s decision of 31 March 2026 was set aside, and the matter sent back for a new hearing, allowing the complaint to be considered afresh. No order as to costs was made.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
