Customary wife fails in claim for husband's R4.5M pension fund benefit

The customary wife of a deceased member of the Becsa Provident Fund fails in her attempt to claim a portion of his death benefit, after the Pension Funds Adjudicator finds that she does not prove financial dependency and is considered an estranged spouse.

The complainant approaches the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator (OPFA), and Muvhango Lukhaimane, the Pensions Funds Adjudicator, after the fund distributes the death benefit of R4 514 636.46 among the deceased’s children and his girlfriend. The allocation is as follows: one daughter receives 15%, another daughter 22.5%, one son 22.5%, another son 25%, and the girlfriend 15%.

The OPFA says the deceased is a member of the fund until his death in September 2023. The complainant submits that she is married to the deceased in terms of customary law and is financially dependent on him. She provides a lobola letter dated September 17, 2022 and a marriage certificate to support her claim. She further states that, in accordance with the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act 120 of 1998, a spouse may register a marriage posthumously. She registers the marriage on 13 March 2024, claiming that a valid customary marriage is concluded on September 17, 2022.

She questions why the deceased declares himself single in his insurance policy if they are customarily married. However, she admits that she has no documentary proof of financial dependency, explaining that they buy groceries together and he gives her money in cash. She lives in Kwa-Mhlanga while the deceased resides in Witbank, and although they do not live together, she visits him on weekends or when off from work.

The OPFA says the fund, however, submits that its investigation reveals the deceased was never married and has five children. The girlfriend, who has lived with the deceased from June 2022 until his death, is identified as his partner. She provides a bank statement showing financial support from the deceased, which the fund accepts as proof of dependency.

According to the fund, the girlfriend qualifies as a factual dependant because she is financially dependent on the deceased, lives with him, and shares household responsibilities. The complainant, on the other hand, fails to provide sufficient proof of marriage or dependency.

The fund notes discrepancies in the documentation. A death certificate issued on September 11, 2023, submitted by the deceased’s brother, indicates he was never married. A second death certificate, marriage certificate, and lobola letter were submitted on January 28, 2025. The second death certificate, issued on November 21, 2023, states that the deceased is married. The marriage certificate was printed on March 13, 2024, recording the marriage date as September 17, 2022.

The fund also holds a beneficiary nomination form completed by the deceased on April 21, 2023, in which he declares himself single and nominates his brother to receive a funeral benefit. This contradicts the complainant’s claim that the marriage took place in 2022.

The OPFA says one of the deceased’s daughters tells the fund she does not know the complainant and confirms that she is not present at the funeral. She also states that the deceased is not married and lives with his girlfriend before his death.

The fund says it requests the complainant to submit further documents, including a lobola letter, birth certificates of any children she has with the deceased, and proof of financial dependency. These documents are never submitted, making it impossible for the fund to verify her dependency or the marital status of the deceased.

In her determination, Lukhaimane acknowledges that the Recognition of Customary Marriages Act allows for posthumous registration of a marriage, and therefore, the complainant qualifies as a legal dependant. However, she notes that the complainant and the deceased live apart, while the girlfriend lives with him and shares expenses.

“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,” says Lukhaimane.

She adds, “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.”

Lukhaimane concludes that the board considers all relevant factors and does not act improperly in its decision. There is no reason to set aside the board’s allocation of the death benefit.

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

PERSONAL FINANCE