In a decision that has reignited debate over inheritance rights in South Africa, the Pension Funds Adjudicator, Muvhango Lukhaimane, has ruled that a customary wife is not entitled to a R4.5 million death benefit, awarding the money instead to the deceased’s girlfriend and four children.
According to the Becsa Provident Fund, the death benefit was distributed among the deceased’s dependants following his death in September 2023 — with 15% going to his girlfriend, while the remaining balance was shared between his children in portions ranging from 15% to 25% each.
The deceased’s customary wife had lodged a complaint with the adjudicator, arguing that she was legally married to the deceased under customary law and financially dependent on him. She provided a lobola letter dated 17 September 2022 and a customary marriage certificate as evidence of their union.
However, the fund’s investigation found that while she qualified as a legal dependant under the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act, she failed to provide proof of financial dependency — a key factor in determining benefit allocation.
Girlfriend Recognised as Factual Dependant
In contrast, the deceased’s girlfriend was found to have been living with him from June 2022 until his death and provided bank statements showing financial support from the deceased.
The fund determined that she met the requirements of a factual dependant — someone who was financially supported by the deceased and shared a common household.
“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,” said Lukhaimane in her ruling.
Wife’s Claim Dismissed Despite Legal Status
While acknowledging the wife’s customary marriage as valid, Lukhaimane explained that legal dependency alone does not guarantee financial benefit, as death benefits are not part of the deceased’s estate and thus not subject to marital property laws.
“The customary wife qualifies as a legal dependant by virtue of her marriage to the deceased. However, this does not automatically entitle her to a share of the death benefit,” Lukhaimane stated.
The wife admitted she had no formal proof of financial support, explaining that the couple lived separately — she in Kwa-Mhlanga and the deceased in Witbank — and that he occasionally gave her money in cash or contributed to groceries.
A Complex Precedent in Pension Law
The case highlights the complex intersection between customary marriages and pension law, where dependency, not just legal status, determines entitlement to death benefits.
Legal experts note that this decision reinforces the importance of demonstrating financial dependency — even for legally recognised spouses — to secure pension-related benefits after a partner’s death.
The ruling also underscores how cohabiting partners who can prove shared financial responsibilities may have stronger claims than estranged or separated spouses without clear evidence of financial support.
