UNISA Pension Fund Dispute – Life Partner Loses Battle Over Spouse Pension

UNISA Pension Fund Dispute – Life Partner Loses Battle Over Spouse Pension. In a compelling case that has stirred debate around pension fund policies and the same partnerships in South Africa, a man who identified himself as the life partner of a retired University of South Africa (UNISA) employee unsuccessfully challenged the cessation of pension payments after his partner’s death.

The matter, which reached the Financial Services Tribunal (FST), underscores the legal complexities of pension fund nominations, particularly in cases where life partners are involved without formal legal unions.

The dispute arose after Sarel Petru Du Plessis complained about the UNISA retirement fund, following the termination of pension payments upon the death of his partner, Daniel Wilhelmus Coetzee, who had served the university until his retirement in March 2019.

At the point of retirement, Coetzee opted to take over R600,000 as a cash lump sum, while allocating more than R5.7 million into an in-fund annuity a structure in which pension savings remain within the retirement fund, continuing to generate returns and provide monthly pension payouts to the retiree.

Crucially, when making his retirement elections, Coetzee nominated 0% for his spouse’s pension, declaring himself unmarried. This specific choice had lasting implications. Upon his passing in April 2023, the fund ceased all pension disbursements, citing the absence of a nominated spouse.

However, Du Plessis challenged this outcome, stating that he had been Coetzee’s life partner, thereby qualifying him as a spouse in terms of South African pension legislation. He approached the Pension Fund Adjudicator (PFA) in April 2024, arguing that the UNISA pension fund failed to follow its own internal rules and had wrongly excluded him.

In September 2024, the PFA dismissed Du Plessis’s complaint, affirming that the retirement fund rules held precedence. The Adjudicator made it clear: fund rules are legally binding and apply equally to all stakeholders — from members and shareholders to claimants.

Refusing to concede, Du Plessis escalated the matter to the Financial Services Tribunal for reconsideration. He insisted that Coetzee’s nomination of zero percent for a spouse’s pension was invalid without his consent as a qualifying life partner. Moreover, he claimed that Coetzee had erred in not making provisions for him in the annuity plan.

In response, the UNISA retirement fund stood by its procedures. It highlighted that Coetzee had consistently declared himself unmarried in official documentation and clearly understood the implications of his pension decisions.

The Tribunal agreed, stating that the evidence showed no irregularities. Coetzee’s actions were seen as deliberate and informed. Since he benefited under those terms until his death, the Tribunal could not, retrospectively, reverse the consequences of his choices.

This case sheds light on critical issues affecting many South Africans in long-term relationships that are not legally formalized through marriage or civil unions. The distinction between married spouses and life partners can lead to severe implications when it comes to retirement benefits and pension claims.

For those in similar circumstances, the case serves as a reminder of the importance of:

• Ensuring clear nomination of beneficiaries within retirement fund structures.
• Understanding how retirement annuities work, especially in-fund annuities.
• Being proactive about legal recognition of life partnerships to avoid future disputes.

As South Africa continues to evolve socially and legally, particularly around LGBTQ+ rights and financial entitlements, it is vital for partners to formalize their relationships where necessary. The UNISA pension fund case may be closed, but the dialogue around pension fund nominations, life partners, and retirement security is far from over.