A long-running Sasol Pension Fund death benefits dispute has ended with the Financial Services Tribunal backing the fund and dismissing a challenge brought by the late pensioner’s older daughter. The ruling confirms that the remaining benefit was lawfully paid to the deceased’s minor child alone, and that there was no legal basis to overturn the earlier decision by the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
The matter centred on the estate of a former Sasol employee who retired on ill-health grounds in 2008 and later received a disability pension until his death in September 2019. At the time he died, he was unmarried and left behind two daughters from different relationships: Dayna Tendai Crow, who was 27, and her younger sister Jade, who was 14.
What followed was a dispute over who was entitled to the balance of the death-related payment. After the father’s death, the fund started paying a monthly child pension to Jade. Crow believed that once her sister became an adult, whatever remained should be shared between both daughters. But when Jade turned 18 in May 2023, the fund told Crow that the remaining amount would be paid to Jade only.
Crow took issue with that explanation and turned to the Pension Funds Adjudicator, arguing that she was both a biological child and a dependant of the deceased, and therefore should have been included in the distribution. The fund, however, maintained that Crow did not qualify under its rules because she was already 27 years old when her father died.
According to the fund’s rules, a “qualifying child” is an unmarried child who was financially dependent on the deceased and who falls within specific age limits. On that basis, the fund said Crow did not qualify as a beneficiary of the child pension. The Adjudicator agreed, finding that the fund had applied its rules correctly and had not acted unfairly, irrationally or unlawfully.
The Adjudicator also found that Section 37C of the Pension Funds Act did not apply in this case. That section governs the distribution of lump-sum death benefits among dependants and beneficiaries. But the Adjudicator concluded that the payment here was not a lump sum at all — it was a child pension governed by the fund’s own rules.
Unhappy with that outcome, Crow asked the Financial Services Tribunal to reconsider the matter. She argued that the Adjudicator had misread the rules and failed to properly consider that a group life cover benefit should have been distributed under Section 37C. She also relied on fund correspondence and a tax certificate, which she said suggested that a lump-sum benefit existed and ought to have been shared.
The fund pushed back strongly. It said no lump-sum death benefit had become available for division. Instead, it explained, the rules provided for a child’s pension to be paid and for the funds to be held in trust until the qualifying child reached majority. Once Jade turned 18, the remaining amount was paid to her in line with those rules.
Sasol Pension Fund death benefits case turns on child pension rules
At the heart of the Sasol Pension Fund death benefits case was a simple but legally important question: was the remaining amount a lump-sum benefit, or was it a child pension? That distinction made all the difference. If it had been a lump sum, Section 37C would have required the fund to consider dependant distribution. If it was a child pension, the fund had to follow its own rules.
The Tribunal found that the benefit was indeed a child’s pension. It noted that the Pension Funds Act specifically excludes pensions payable to a spouse or child from the reach of Section 37C. In other words, the law does not automatically open those payments up for apportionment among other dependants.
That finding effectively closed the door on Crow’s argument. Because she did not meet the fund’s definition of a qualifying child, the Tribunal said the fund had no authority to allocate any part of the benefit to her. The fact that she was the deceased’s daughter did not, on its own, create a legal entitlement.
The Tribunal did acknowledge that the fund had at times given inconsistent explanations about the nature of the benefit in earlier communications. But it made clear that confusion or poor communication does not create a right to money where none exists under the rules. In short, being dissatisfied with the way the matter was explained was not enough to change the legal outcome.
After reviewing the record, the Tribunal said the Adjudicator had not made any material error, irregularity or misdirection. It found that the earlier determination was consistent with both the fund rules and the Pension Funds Act, and that there was no basis to interfere with it.
The result is that the original ruling stands, and the dispute has now been brought to an end. The Tribunal’s decision confirms that the remaining funds were properly paid to Jade alone, and that Crow had no legal entitlement to share in the benefit.
For South Africans watching how pension disputes are resolved, the case is another reminder that fund rules matter and that the label attached to a benefit can determine who gets paid. As we have reported before, many complaints in the retirement sector turn not on family circumstances, but on the exact wording of scheme rules and the limits set by the law.
In this instance, the Tribunal’s message was clear: the law protects the distribution process, but it does not extend benefits beyond what the scheme rules allow. With the Financial Services Tribunal having dismissed the reconsideration application, the Sasol Pension Fund death benefits matter is now formally settled.