Skip to main content

Partners in a permanent life partnership could now enjoy the same benefits as spouses when it comes to intestate succession.

 


The High Court in Cape Town recently decided a matter where a surviving partner, in a permanent life partnership, sought to declare certain sections of the Intestate Succession Act 18 of 1987 and Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 1990 unconstitutional. 


In Bwanya v Master of the High Court and others 2020 (12) BCLR 1446 (WCC) the Applicant alleged that she and the deceased had been partners in a permanent opposite-sex life partnership, with the same or similar characteristics as a marriage, in which they had undertaken reciprocal duties of support and had committed themselves to marrying each other. 


The deceased passed without leaving a valid will. The Applicant accordingly claimed against the estate and sought to be recognized as an heir in terms of the Intestate Succession Act. She further also sought maintenance from the estate in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. 


The executor rejected the Applicants claims on the basis that the aforementioned acts does not make provision for opposite-sex partners in life partnerships. Since the Applicant and the deceased were not married, the Applicant could not inherit nor could she claim maintenance from the estate. 


The Applicant, wanting to inherit and receive maintenance like a spouse, approached the High Court for relief. She sought to have certain sections of the statutes declared unconstitutional and for such to include partners in opposite-sex partnerships. 


In Gory v Kolver NO 2007 (3) BCLR 249 (CC) and in Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie 2006 (3) BCLR 355 (CC) the Constitutional Court recognized that partners in a permanent same-sex partnership in which partners had assumed reciprocal duties of support should be treated the same as spouses when interpreting the Intestate Succession and Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Acts. This was done before same-sex partners could enter a civil union and be seen as married. 


The Applicant in these proceedings contended that the Acts unfairly discriminate against heterosexual partners in favor of same sex partners, especially now that same-sex partners could enter a civil union. 


As far as the challenge against the Maintenance of Surviving Spouse Act is concerned the High Court in this instance was bound by Constitutional Court’s ruling in Volks v Robinson. In this matter, the Court did not endorse the reading in of “opposite sex permanent life partner” into the act. The Court found that there is no legal mechanism available to depart from the Volks matter. The basis for Volks refusal was that there must be a duty of support imposed by law and not a mere contractual one. Since the Applicant and the deceased was not married, there was no lawful duty to support. 


With regards to the challenge against the Intestate Succession Act the Judge concluded that there was no reason not to read into section 1(1) of the act the words “or partner in a permanent opposite-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support” following the word “spouse”. The matter thus succeeded in this aspect and it was ordered that Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act is unconstitutional and invalid in so far as it excludes partners in opposite-sex life partnerships. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Signing a contract without reading and or understanding it – what are the implications?

This article deals with the written forms of contract, more specifically when one party tries to resile from (or get out of) a contract because he/she/it did not understand the contract’s terms or did not know that he/she/it was signing an actual contract.  In South African law the principle  Caveat Subscriptor  –  signor beware  – applies.  This means that a party who signs a contract consents to be bound by its terms and conditions, irrespective if such party did not read the contract or understand its terms.    The fact that you did not read the contract, did not understand its terms, or did not know what you were signing, is not an excuse which will help you escape the legal consequences of said contract.  I refer to the case of  Smit v Hughes  where it was explained that:  “ If, whatever a man’s real intention may be, he so conducts himself that a reasonable man would believe that he was assenting to t...
Post a Comment
Read more

The divorce procedure made easy.

  Following our previous article, Understanding the divorce procedure , we would now like to guide you through the steps you need to take to do your own divorce. Please note that this a very basic guide as there are many different permutations with regards to divorces and we are available to assist you at any point with further legal advice.   In order to start your divorce procedure, you will first need to draft a divorce summons. A divorce summons is a formal notification that a divorce is being requested and the terms of the divorce. Various examples of divorce summons can be obtained on the internet or from the courts. The content of the summons is very important and should be carefully thought through.   If there are minor children involved, you will need to complete an Annexure “A” form, which can be obtained on the internet or from the courts. This form needs to be commissioned by a commissioner of oaths and once completed it must be attached to your summons, befor...
Post a Comment
Read more

Who are guardians and what does guardianship entail?

Guardianship is a parental right and responsibility that a biological parent has with regards to his/her child.   It is, amongst others, set out in Section 18 of the Children’s Act, 38 of 2005 (“the Act”).   What is important to note here, is that a person can also be awarded guardianship over a child other than his/her own, by the high court of competent jurisdiction. In South Africa, a child becomes an adult when he/she turns 18.   Prior to that date, the person/s who have full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of that child, and in particular guardianship, must make legal decisions on the child’s behalf.   So, in other words, guardianship is the right and responsibility to make legal decisions for your child or for the child for which you have been appointed as guardian.     A biological mother, whether married or unmarried, automatically has full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of her child.   But , if the mother ...
Post a Comment
Read more