What Happened?
A housekeeper who worked for a couple for 30 years was treated like a daughter. After she stopped working officially, the couple kept sending her R3,500 each month for food and living costs. When both spouses died in late 2024, the Allan Gray Retirement Annuity Fund gave the entire death benefit—about R1.9 million—to the housekeeper.
The executor’s challenge
The person in charge of the couple’s estate (the executor) disagreed with the fund’s choice. She filed a complaint with the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA), arguing that the money should have gone to the estate or been split with the housekeeper, who would have received roughly R400,000 from the estate if the fund had not intervened.
Why the executor appealed
- She said the fund wrongly used section 37C(1)(a) of the Pension Funds Act, which applies only when there is no nominated beneficiary.
- She believed the correct rule was section 37C(1)(b) (payment to nominees) or section 37C(1)(bA) (payment to both dependents and nominees).
- The executor pointed out that each spouse had left the housekeeper R200,000 in their wills, meant to replace the monthly stipend, so she argued the housekeeper was no longer a dependent.
What the pension fund decided
The fund looked at the facts: the couple kept paying the housekeeper R3,500 a month even after her formal job ended, and they each left her R200,000. Based on this, the fund classified her as a dependent and awarded her the full death benefit.
The PFA’s review
- The PFA noted that the executor kept sending the R3,500 monthly payments after the deaths, showing ongoing support.
- Deputy judge Naheem Essop first said the fund’s legal reasoning was flawed and should be reconsidered.
- However, sending the case back would cause more delay, and the husband had died just days after his wife, leaving the housekeeper as the surviving dependent the law aims to protect.
- The judge concluded that both the husband and the housekeeper were dependents under section 37C, and an equitable split would still leave the housekeeper without enough support. Therefore, the full benefit was awarded to her on solid legal grounds.
Why the decision matters
Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act exists to make sure people who relied on a member’s income are not left stranded after that member’s death. The case shows how the law looks at real‑life relationships—not just formal job titles—to decide who needs protection.
Bottom line
After three decades of loyal service and continued financial help from the couple, the housekeeper was recognized as a dependent and received the entire R1.9 million death benefit. The executor’s attempt to overturn the decision failed because the PFA found the fund’s choice aligned with the law’s purpose of safeguarding dependents.
