Judgment reserved in R44m Mabuza pension fund dispute

The dispute pits Mabuza’s wives and children against his widow, who claims to be the sole beneficiary of his living annuity.

Mabuza passed away in July following a short illness, leaving behind a large family, including several biological children born to different mothers.

At the heart of the case is whether the annuity should be paid directly to the widow as the nominated beneficiary or distributed among all of Mabuza’s dependents in accordance with pension law.

The case, brought by one of Mabuza’s daughters, centres on the living annuity. 

While the daughter insists the money should be paid directly to her, the rest of the family wants the funds to remain with the company until the estate is finalised.

Advocate Doctor Sibuyi, representing the other children, argued in court that paying the money prematurely would prejudice the rest of the family.

ALSO READ: Ramaphosa praises Mabuza for unifying South Africans

"All the children were supported by Mabuza when he was alive; it can't be allowed that they are now dependent on the state. We are happy that the money is still with Alexander Forbes. The only competing view today is that the respondent is saying that the money needs to be paid to her. And we are saying that, 'No, the money cannot be paid to her'. The money should remain with Alexander Forbes."

Earlier, Sibuyi also told the court that a nomination form naming the widow as the sole beneficiary could not override pension law, which requires all dependents to be considered.

"The issue that is before us here is that we are coming before this honourable court this morning to say, court, we need you to determine the money, which is about 44 million, that belongs to the deceased, which we were informed that there is a nomination form. That nomination form has since been given to us late yesterday, I think by the respondent, it would be Alexander Forbes, which there is the nominated person, and the nominated person being the first respondent. 

"And we are saying to this, we are coming to this honourable court to pray, to put a prayer, to say, my Lord, the determination of that money should be in accordance with Section 37. And section 37 limits the testamentary freedom of a member at which he has nominated a person. And our departure from that is that the court has to consider that the nominated person is not the only dependent, which is the factor that the honourable court has already raised."

The presiding judge reserved judgment, with a ruling expected on Tuesday.

Find us on social media

Follow the ECR Newswatch WhatsApp channel here

We are also on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter)