Private Client

Our Client is a Vulnerable Widow in A Dispute with the South African Retirement Annuity Fund

Our Client’s Challenge

RW Attorneys acted for Ms. Sophia Viljoen, a vulnerable widow, in a case involving a dispute over the payment of her late husband’s death benefits from the South African Retirement Annuity Fund (SARAF). Ms. Viljoen, the second respondent, was dependent on her late husband’s pension benefits to support herself, as she had no other significant source of income. 

The dispute centered around the interpretation of section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, which determines how death benefits should be allocated. The specific issue was whether the 12-month period for the fund to trace dependents starts from the date of the member’s death or from when the fund becomes aware of the death. In this case, SARAF only learned of Mr. Viljoen’s death more than two years after it occurred. Consequently, SARAF decided not to trace dependents and paid the death benefit directly into the deceased member’s estate, arguing that the 12-month period had expired.
 

Our Process

RW Attorneys represented Ms. Viljoen pro bono to ensure she had access to justice.

RW Attorneys argued that the Pension Funds Act requires the fund to start tracing dependents from the date it becomes aware of the member’s death, not the date of death itself. They contended that the purpose of the Act is to protect dependents and ensure they receive their due benefits, rather than leaving them to compete with other creditors of the deceased’s estate.

The Outcome

The court agreed with RW Attorneys, ruling that the 12-month period begins only when the fund becomes aware of the death. It found that the interpretation presented by RW Attorneys was consistent with the legislative intent to protect dependents and uphold their rights. The court ordered SARAF to trace the deceased’s beneficiaries and distribute the death benefit accordingly.

RW Attorneys successfully secured justice for Ms. Viljoen, ensuring she would receive her rightful share of her late husband’s pension benefits. Although the court did not award costs to RW Attorneys for their pro bono work, it granted costs to their advocate, recognising the merit of the legal argument and the importance of the case in protecting vulnerable dependents.