Til Pension Do Us Part

After nearly 26 years of living apart, a woman decided it was time to finally divorce her husband, just as he was set to retire with a healthy pension. Coincidence? Her husband certainly didn’t think so.

The former police officer, who had worked hard over the years to build up his Government Employees Pension Fund, was adamant that his estranged wife had no claim to it. In response to her divorce application, he asked the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg to rule that she should forfeit her share.

The court, however, saw things differently. While acknowledging that the couple had long lived separate lives, it ruled that she was entitled to only 20% of his pension, which is less than the automatic 50% split of a community of property marriage, but still a share because she was, after all, present in the marriage, at least at the beginning.

The couple’s history goes back to 1987, when the husband paid lobola for his bride. In 1994, they entered into a civil marriage in community of property. Just four years later, the wife left the marital home. The husband had just been involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained some serious injuries. According to him, his wife left him while he was still recovering, as “she did not want to take care of someone with crutches.”

From that point on, their lives diverged. He continued his police career, living in SAPS barracks, while she worked cleaning offices. He never bought a house, but she purchased an RDP house on her own. Their children were raised by their paternal grandparents in Limpopo.

With no joint assets beyond the pension, the court considered their years apart. The husband had contributed to his pension for over 30 years, while the wife had only been present for the first six. The court noted that she had not contributed to his financial stability and found it fair to award her a fraction rather than half. So, while the pension fund may have sparked the divorce, the court ensured the payout was grounded in fairness rather than opportunism.

I suppose, if you’re going to vanish for a quarter of a century, maybe don’t return clutching a calculator and divorce papers. Sometimes the court sees right through it.

You can read the full SJM v SJK judgement here.

Written by Theo Tembo