- Widow Sara Garzancich confirmed as rightful beneficiary of late husband’s R7.6 million pension.
- Tribunal finds Old Mutual Superfund’s dependency investigation and discretion were sound.
- Decision reinforces that pension funds prioritise dependants’ needs over inheritance claims.
For Sara Susanna Garzancich, the Financial Services Tribunal’s decision brought long-awaited closure to a bitter family dispute over her late husband’s R7.6 million pension benefit.
The Tribunal ruled that the Old Mutual Superfund acted correctly in allocating the entire amount to her as the surviving spouse. It dismissed the challenge brought by her two stepsons, Dean and Wayne Garzancich. The brothers argued that the Fund failed to consider their relationship with their father, Derick Garzancich, who died in February 2021, and that Sara was in a better financial position.
But the Tribunal, chaired by PJ Veldhuizen with LTC Harms concurring, found that the Fund had followed all the necessary procedures. “The record indicates that the Fund conducted interviews and reviewed submitted documentation,” the ruling stated. “It identified potential dependants, assessed their financial circumstances, and decided to allocate the entire death benefit to the Third Respondent.”
Sara, who was married to the deceased and shared financial ties with him, maintained throughout that the Fund’s decision was fair and legal. The Tribunal agreed, stating that “a finding of misdirection is unsustainable, and it appears from the record that just the opposite is true.”
Tribunal rejects claims of unfairness
The Tribunal stressed that its role was not to replace the Fund’s judgment but to ensure that the Fund acted fairly. “It is not for the Adjudicator, nor indeed for this Tribunal, to decide whether we agree with the Fund,” Veldhuizen wrote. “Our role is to assess whether the Fund applied its discretion fairly and without misdirection.”
It found that the Old Mutual Superfund’s investigation met all legal requirements under section 37C of the Pension Funds Act. This law requires pension funds to determine who counts as dependents rather than just distributing benefits based on inheritance expectations.
“It is clear from the record that the Fund applied its mind diligently to the facts it was bound to consider and communicated solid reasons for their decision to all affected parties.”— Financial Services Tribunal, 11 November 2025
Sara’s submissions, which echoed the Fund’s reasoning, were also recognised by the Tribunal. It accepted her argument that the allocation was “fair, reasonable, and in accordance with section 37C of the Pension Funds Act.”
Dependency, not inheritance
The Tribunal used this opportunity to reiterate an important legal principle that pension death benefits are not part of a deceased person’s estate. These benefits must go to dependants, those who received financial support from the deceased at the time of death.
Citing Sithole v ICS Provident Fund and Another, the judgment explained that funds should consider the age of dependants, their relationship to the deceased, the extent of their dependency, the deceased’s wishes, and the total amount available for distribution.
After applying these principles, the Tribunal concluded that the Old Mutual Superfund’s allocation to Sara was justified. “Even if the allocation were sent back to the Fund,” it stated, “it is unlikely that the Fund would arrive at a different allocation.”
Case brings closure
In its closing order, the Tribunal dismissed the sons’ application and confirmed that the widow’s entitlement stands. “The Fund cannot be faulted for the death benefit allocation arrived at. The application for reconsideration and setting aside of the Adjudicator’s determination must be dismissed,” Veldhuizen ruled.
Get your news on the go. Clickhere to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
