A widow has won an important court battle over her late husband’s death benefit. The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria found that the Telkom Retirement Fund did not give enough proof to justify paying R768,407 to the deceased’s mother. The case shows how tricky death benefits can be, even when the rules look simple on paper.
Below is an easy breakdown of what happened, what the court said and why it matters for South African families.
A death benefit of more than R7.6 million
The case began after a Telkom employee died on 22 October 2022. His death left a benefit of R7,684,069.95 payable under the Pension Funds Act.
The man had not completed a beneficiary nomination form. This means he never told the fund in writing who should receive his money. When this happens, the fund must decide for itself. That is not a simple job, because the law expects the fund to look carefully at who depended on the member.
The fund shared the money like this:
| Beneficiary | Share |
|---|---|
| Widow | 50% |
| First child | 20% |
| Second child | 20% |
| Mother | 10% |
The mother received a net lump sum of R633,137.32 in January 2024. Before tax, that amount was R768,407. She later gave R100,000 to each of her grandchildren.
Why the widow objected
The widow was unhappy with the 10% share given to her mother in law. Her main argument was easy to understand. She said the fund had not properly shown how much the older woman relied on her son for financial support. She also said the fund had not explained why the amount paid out was fair.
In short, the widow wanted the fund to prove its decision. She did not accept that a payment of this size could be made without clear evidence.
The Pension Funds Adjudicator steps in
The widow took her complaint to the Pension Funds Adjudicator. In December 2024, the Adjudicator set aside the 10% allocation to the mother. The fund was told to investigate again.
The fund did carry out a further investigation. However, in February 2025 it stood by its original decision. The matter then continued, and the fund eventually asked the High Court to overturn the Adjudicator’s determination of July 2025.
That was the final step in a long fight. For the widow, it meant more than two years of waiting and legal steps after her husband’s death.
The fund’s argument about future care
The fund had a reason for its decision. It argued that the mother might need frail care in the future. It said this could cost about R20,000 a month. In its view, the 10% share could help her cover such costs later in life.
This is where the case became more than a simple money dispute. The question was not only whether the mother needed help right now. It was also whether the fund could rely on a possible need in the future.
The court looked closely at this point. The judge considered whether the Adjudicator had wrongly treated the mother’s claim as one of existing financial dependency, instead of potential future dependency. Put in plain words, the fund said she might need support one day. The widow said the fund had not proved enough.
What the High Court decided
The High Court did not agree with the fund. It found that the fund failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the payout to the mother.
The court made the following orders:
- The fund’s application was dismissed.
- The Adjudicator’s July 2025 determination was confirmed, with some changes to the deadlines for compliance.
- The fund was ordered to pay the widow’s legal costs, including counsel’s fees on scale B.
The ruling is a win for the widow. It also sends a clear message to retirement funds that they must back up their decisions with facts.
What section 37C means in simple terms
The court looked at section 37C of the Pension Funds Act. This part of the law is easy to describe, even if the process behind it is not.
When a fund member dies, the fund must try to find everyone who depended on that person. This can include a spouse, children and sometimes other family members. The fund must then share the death benefit in an equitable way. That does not always mean equal shares. It means a fair split based on real needs and real circumstances.
The law also means that a death benefit does not simply form part of the estate. The fund board has a duty to investigate and decide. If it fails to do this properly, its decision can be challenged.
You can read more about how complaints work on the website of the Pension Funds Adjudicator.
Why this case matters to families
Many South Africans think a death benefit automatically goes to a spouse. This case shows it is not that simple. Children, parents and other dependants can all be considered. The fund must weigh each person’s situation.
The case also shows that a fund cannot rely on guesses. A possible future need may be a factor, but the fund still has to support its decision with proper evidence. A payout of R768,407 is not a small matter for any family.
Easy steps to protect your family
Cases like this one often start because a member never filled in a nomination form. Here are some easy steps that may help your family avoid confusion:
- Check your nomination form. Ask your employer or fund whether you have one on file.
- Keep it up to date. Update it after marriage, divorce, or the birth of a child.
- Tell your family. Let your loved ones know which fund you belong to.
- Keep records safe. Store your fund details in a place your family can find.
A nomination form is a simple way to tell the fund what you want. The fund board still has to investigate and decide, but your wishes will help guide it.
For general information on retirement funds and how they are regulated, you can visit the Financial Sector Conduct Authority.
What happens next
The ruling confirms the Adjudicator’s determination and the order for the fund to investigate the matter again. The fund must now carry out that process within the adjusted deadlines set by the court.
For the widow, the judgment is a major step after a long and stressful fight. For other families, it is a reminder that death benefits can be challenged when a fund does not do its homework.
If you are unhappy with how a fund shared a benefit, you can lodge a complaint with the Pension Funds Adjudicator. The process is free and meant to be easy for ordinary people to use. You do not always need a lawyer to start, although each case is different.
The bottom line
This case turns on one simple idea. A retirement fund must show its work. When it hands a share of a death benefit to someone, it needs real evidence that the payment is fair and justified.
The North Gauteng High Court found that the Telkom Retirement Fund did not meet that standard in this case. The widow now has a ruling that backs her challenge, and the fund has to go back and do the investigation properly.
About the Author
