Muvhango Lukhaimane, Pension Funds Adjudicator

The customary wife of a deceased failed in her attempt to claim a death benefit as she had not proved dependency on the deceased and was an estranged spouse.

In her complaint to Pension Funds Adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, the wife was unhappy that the Becsa Provident Fund distributed the death benefit of R4 514 636.46 as follows: the deceased’s one daughter 15%; another daughter 22.5%; one son 22.5%; another son 25% and the deceased’s girlfriend 15%.

The deceased was a member of the fund until he passed away in September 2023.

The complainant submitted that she was married to the deceased and was financially dependent on him. She provided a copy of a lobola letter dated 17 September 2022 and marriage certificate in support of her submissions.

The complainant submitted that in terms of the Recognition of Marriage for Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, either spouse may apply to register his or her marriage after the death of the other. She indicated that a few months after the deceased died, she registered her marriage in terms of customary law on13 March 2024 with a valid customary marriage having been concluded on 17 September 2022.

Therefore, she said it was not clear as to why the deceased, in his insurance policy, stated he was single while he was customarily married.

The complainant said she did not have any proof that she was financially dependent on the deceased as they bought groceries together and he would give her money in cash.

The complainant said she resided in Kwa-Mhlanga and the deceased resided in Witbank. Although they did not reside together, she would visit him on weekends or when she was off from work.

The fund submitted that according to the investigation report, the deceased was never married and had five children. The girlfriend had indicated that she was the deceased’s partner and had been residing with him from June 2022 until the time of death. She also provided the fund with a bank statement showing money received from the deceased to prove her financial dependency.

The fund submitted that upon investigation it established that the girlfriend qualified as a factual dependant on the basis that she was financially dependent on the deceased, she lived with him, and they shared common household responsibilities.

The fund submitted that the complainant did not furnish it with proof of marriage and her dependency on the deceased.

The fund also submitted that it had noted a few discrepancies relating to this matter. A death certificate issued on 11 September 2023, and submitted to the fund by the deceased’s brother, indicated  the deceased member was never married. On 28 January 2025, the fund received a second death certificate, marriage certificate, and lobola letter. The second death certificate had an issue date of 21 November 2023 and indicated that the deceased was married.

The fund indicated that the marriage certificate was printed on 13 March 2024 with the date of marriage recorded as 17 September 2022. The fund said it was in possession of a beneficiary nomination form completed by the deceased signed and dated 21 April 2023, wherein the deceased had indicated his marital status as single and further nominated his brother to receive a funeral benefit.

The fund noted that the deceased completed this nomination form although, according to the complainant, the customary marriage occurred in 2022.

The fund submitted that one of the daughters said she did not know the customary wife and confirmed that she was not present at the deceased’s funeral. The daughter further stated that the deceased was not married and that, prior to his passing, he was residing with his girlfriend.

The fund said the customary wife had been requested to submit certain documents such as a lobola letter between her and the deceased; birth certificates of the children that the deceased had with her; and her proof of financial dependency on the deceased. The requested documents were never submitted. Furthermore, the customary wife had not provided proof of financial dependency, which was previously requested. As the documents mentioned were not forthcoming the fund could not prove the customary wife’s dependency, or the martial status of the deceased.

In her determination, Lukhaimane said the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, 120 of 1998, provides for the posthumous registration of a marriage. Thus the complainant, as the customary wife, qualified as a legal dependant.

Lukhaimane said the girlfriend was the deceased’s life partner and resided with him at the time of death. The complainant and the deceased lived apart.

“The girlfriend and the deceased shared a common household and expenses. Therefore, she qualifies as a factual dependant and was allocated a portion of the death benefit. The deceased children qualified as his legal dependants and had a right to be considered for a death benefit.

“The facts indicate that the complainant was the deceased’s legal spouse. However, the investigations indicated that she was an estranged spouse as confirmed by submissions to the fund as well as the fact that the deceased resided with his girlfriend.

“Whilst the customary wife qualifies as a legal dependant by virtue of her marriage to the deceased, this does not necessarily entitle her to an allocation of the death benefit as the death benefit does not form part of the deceased’s estate and is therefore, not subject to any matrimonial property regime.

“Further, there is no proof that the customary wife was financially dependent on the deceased for maintenance or other reasons.

“The fund submitted that due to the customary wife not providing the requested documents, it was not able to ascertain her dependency. Thus, the fund did not allocate a portion of the death benefit as she could not provide proof of her financial dependency,” said Ms Lukhaimane.

She said she was satisfied that the board took into account relevant factors and ignored irrelevant factors. The board did not fetter its discretion in the allocation of the deceased’s death benefit and there was no reason to set aside the board’s decision.

“In the result, the complaint cannot succeed and is dismissed,” said Ms Lukhaimane.

ENDS