What Happened After the Brother’s Death?
When LP passed away in October 2023, his pension fund had a death benefit of R654,693.82 to share. The fund gave 80 % (over R523,000) to his son, S, and 20 % (over R130,000) to his mother, EM. His sister, RK, received nothing.
Why RK Disagreed with the Split
RK argued that S wasn’t financially dependent on his father and claimed her brother had denied being the child’s father. She also said their elderly mother, who relied completely on LP for food, housing, transport, utilities and medical care, deserved a larger share than the 20 % she got. RK even asked for a refund of the money she spent on her brother’s funeral.
What the DNA Test Showed
To settle the paternity question, a DNA test was done. The results confirmed that the three‑year‑old boy, S, is biologically LP’s child.
The Fund’s Position on the Life‑Insurance Payout
The pension fund pointed out that RK is the sole beneficiary of LP’s life‑insurance policy worth R1,934,910.72. Because neither S nor EM received anything from that policy, the fund said it had to split the pension death benefit only between the child and the mother.
Views from the Other Parties
EM’s Perspective
EM said she lived with LP until his death and depended on him for all her daily needs. She felt the award favored S, who only received partial support through alimony.
S’s Mother’s Perspective
S’s mother countered that LP had acknowledged paternity in maintenance court, which led to a court order for him to pay R500 per month in child support. She added that S has speech delays requiring therapy and extra medical care.
The Judge’s Decision
Deputy Pension Fund Judge Naheem Essop ruled that S is a legal dependent because he is LP’s child and the maintenance court already recognized LP’s obligation to support him. However, the judge found two major problems with the fund’s original decision:
- The fund did not look into S’s actual monthly financial needs, his guardian’s financial situation, or how his education might affect those needs before giving him 80 % of the benefit.
- The fund failed to properly assess EM’s income, financial needs, job prospects, or life expectancy before deciding she should get only 20 %.
Because of these shortcomings, the judge declared the original allocation invalid and ordered the fund to re‑investigate and make a new decision within three months.
What the Judge Said About Funeral and DNA Costs
Essop rejected RK’s request for reimbursement of funeral and DNA‑testing expenses. He explained that pension death benefits are meant to support the bereaved family financially, not to cover relatives’ funeral costs. He also noted that RK chose to have the DNA test on her own; the fund did not ask for it.
What Happens Next?
The pension fund now has three months to:
- Review the child’s real financial needs and his guardian’s situation.
- Examine EM’s financial status, health, and life expectancy.
- Decide on a fair split of the R654,693.82 death benefit based on that information.
Until then, the original payout stands as invalid, and both RK and the other family members await the fund’s revised decision.
Key Takeaways for Teens
- Death benefits are meant to help those who truly depended on the deceased.
- Funds must look at actual needs—not just assume who should get what.
- DNA tests can clarify family relationships, but they don’t automatically change benefit allocations.
- Funeral costs are usually not covered by pension death benefits.
