A 53-year-old woman, who dated a man for 17 years, took the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) to the Financial Services Tribunal (FST) after she was not included in his R21 million provident fund.

Fathima Sayed was in a romantic relationship with A Singh since 2007.

After his death in July 2021, Old Mutual Superfund Provident Fund allocated Singh's two daughters 50% each from his R21 million provident fund.

Sayed was aggrieved by this and sought relief at the PFA where she was unsuccessful, and she approached the FST to overturn the decision.

In her application, she explained that when she met Singh, she resigned from her employment at ABSA to care for him and her child from a previous marriage.

She argued that she was Singh's dependent, and their relationship was akin to marriage.

She claimed that all living expenses were paid by Singh.

She added that Singh provided her with an allowance equivalent to her former salary and financially supported her and her child throughout their 17-year relationship.

Furthermore, she said Singh assisted her with a R700,000 payment to settle her bond after she sold her divorce-acquired property for over R900,000. She claimed she transferred the proceeds of the sale to Singh

After selling her property, she moved in with Singh and signed a cohabitation agreement in February 2017. She claimed she felt compelled to sign the agreement due to her fear of being without a home.

The cohabitation agreement indicated that Sayed waived her rights to claim pension benefits from Singh.

However, Sayed said she was no longer bound by the cohabitation agreement following Singh's death as the agreement was terminated upon the death of either party.

Sayed added that Old Mutual allocated Singh's death benefit to his daughters, who were at the time employed and financially independent businesswomen, and they also inherited significant business interests from their father.

Despite receiving a monthly R35,000 from Singh's will, Sayed said it was not enough.

She added that even the R7 million life insurance payout she received was also insufficient to cover living expenses and unforeseen costs.

She said she has been unemployed for more than 15 years and she struggled to obtain employment at her age. She further submitted that the policy payout may not sustain her for life.

To support her case, she provided a non-registered marriage certificate dated June 24, 2019, as evidence of her and Singh's intent to legitimise their relationship.

She also claimed they were engaged even though they lived apart for almost five years before his death.

In response, Old Mutual said before allocating the funds, it noted that Sayed was allocated a monthly amount of R35,000 but she was instead paid a lump sum.

Additionally, she received an immovable property valued at R1.7 million and Old Mutual argued that these provisions negated her need for further financial support.

Moreover, the insurance company said the cohabitation agreement suggests that Singh did not want Sayed to get a share in the death benefit proceeds.

Old Mutual said that it was confirmed that Sayed received R12,000 monthly from her eldest son and another R10,000 monthly from her ex-husband for child support and her child was not Singh's dependent.

It was further noted that she had prior work experience, a tertiary education, and therefore, she was an income-earning potential.

It was also added that her medical condition, lupus, was not a hindrance for her to get employment.

It was then concluded that she had received sufficient financial support through third party payouts and other provisions.

When the matter was referred to the PFA, the adjudicator said it recognised Sayed as a factual dependent, however, it was held that such recognition does not automatically entitle one to a share of the death benefit.

As a result, the PFA agreed with Old Mutual's decision.

When the matter was referred to the FST, the tribunal considered all the evidence provided by Old Mutual and new evidence which came in later showing that in November 2023, Sayed was paid over R5.2 million from another pension fund.

"The reasoning behind this allocation was not disclosed to the Tribunal (FST) and could not be considered. Nevertheless, this further payout highlights that Sayed was sufficiently provided for and is now in a stronger financial position than when the Fund (Old Mutual) made its decision," said the FST.

"No substantial evidence has been presented to demonstrate Sayed's alleged hardship. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that Sayed has been adequately provided to ensure her financial sustainability."

The FST dismissed Sayed's application.

sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za

IOL News