Latest news with #SupremeCourtofAppeal
IOL News
3 days ago
- General
- IOL News
Understanding the allocation of death benefits in South African retirement funds
Explore the complexities of death benefit allocation from retirement funds in South Africa, and understand the legal obligations of trustees and the rights of dependants. Image: Independent Newspapers. It is a sad event when a loved one, especially a parent, passes away. Dealing with grief, family members, funeral arrangements, insurance companies, and the retirement fund of your deceased parent can increase the anxiety levels of adult children who must take control of a situation that most of us cannot fully prepare for. Emotions are high, and we try to control everything. One thing we cannot control is the allocation and payment of the death benefits by the retirement fund of our deceased parents. In terms of section 37C of the Pension Funds Act, the trustees of a retirement fund have the obligation and discretion, to: Find the dependants and nominees of the deceased member; Allocate death benefits to qualifying dependants and nominees in a just and equitable manner; and Pay the allocated benefits to the qualifying dependants and nominees. Section 1 of the Pension Funds Act defines a dependent, about a fund member as: The spouse of the member. The child of the member. A person in respect of whom the member is legally liable for maintenance, for example, an ex-spouse who is legally entitled to maintenance in terms of a divorce order. A person in respect of whom the member is not legally liable for maintenance if such a person was, in the opinion of the fund trustees, factually dependent on the deceased for maintenance, for example, a stepchild. A person regarding whom the member would have become legally liable for maintenance had the member not died. The Supreme Court of Appeal stated in the Guarnieri ruling that the purpose of section 37C of the Pension Funds Act is to protect existing and potential dependants and that it serves a social function to protect dependency, even over the clear wishes of the member. When allocating death benefits, the Office of the Pension Funds Adjudicator has identified the following factors that fund trustees must consider when making just and equitable death benefits allocations: The age of the dependants. Minors and dependants who are retired must receive greater consideration than adult dependants who can earn an income to support themselves. The relationship with the deceased. The spouse and children of the deceased should rank above the parents and siblings of the deceased member. The extent of the dependency. A minor child who was 100% dependant on the deceased for maintenance is treated differently from an adult child who earns an income and is only partially dependent on his or her parent for maintenance. The wishes of the deceased. The persons nominated by the member in a nomination form or a will must be considered for an allocation of benefits if the needs of dependants have been met. The financial affairs of the dependants, including their future earning potential. An adult child of the member has a higher future earning potential than the spouse of the member, who is no longer able to work, and the spouse should thus receive more consideration than the adult child. The amount available for distribution. The death benefit must first be applied to ensure that the future needs of dependants are catered for. If there are surplus funds, the nominees of the deceased who are not dependants, can be taken into account for a benefit allocation. Nominees who are not dependants can therefore be excluded from receiving benefits where the death benefit is small. In the case of Dlamini v South African Local Authorities Pension Fund and Others, the Financial Services Tribunal had to determine if the Pension Funds Adjudicator's decision that the death benefit allocation decision of the fund was just and equitable must be upheld. The eldest daughter of the deceased member complained that the decision by the fund trustees to allocate 45% of the death benefit payable by the fund upon the death of her father to his life partner was not just and equitable. The complainant claimed that the decision of the trustees was based on false documentation, that the dependency of the life partner was overexaggerated, and that the fund contradicted itself in the submissions submitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal ruled that the onus was on the complainant to prove that the decision of the trustees was not just and equitable. It found that the life partner of the deceased member submitted an affidavit of dependency and that she and the deceased member lived together for a period of two years at the time of his death. The complainant failed to provide any evidence that proved that the deceased member and the life partner were not in a relationship, did not share household expenses, and never resided in the same house.
Eyewitness News
3 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
The people must ceaselessly challenge the lawlessness of the SA government
Malaika Mahlatsi 30 May 2025 | 13:08 Nandipha Magudumana appeared at the the Bloemfontein High Court on 5 June 2024. Picture: Katlego Jiyane/Eyewitness News The people must ceaselessly challenge the lawlessness of the SA government A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa delivered a judgment in the Magudumana v Director of Public Prosecutions, Free State and Others. The case sought to decide whether Magudumana's extradition from Tanzania (which she contends was, in fact, an abduction by the South African Police Service (SAPS) on the instruction of the South African State) was lawful. The majority judgment found that it was. But Judge Makgoka, in his minority judgment that has been lauded by international law experts, disagrees with his colleagues, arguing that the arrest of Magudumana was unlawfully disguised as an extradition when it did not, in fact, follow proper extradition processes. The judgment is extensive, delving into the complexities of international law. But it is on page 43 of its conclusion that Judge Makgoka makes a profound reflection, one that goes beyond the case in question and to the very issue at the core of the moral crisis of the South African state – its perennial lawlessness. Speaking to this lawlessness, Judge Makgoka quotes the words of Judge Louis Dembitz Brandeis in the Olmstead et al v United States judgment, where the then Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States made this profound input: 'In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulously…Government is the potent, omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy'. Judge Brandeis had spent many years challenging the erosion of morality on the part of the American state, specifically about its problematic relationship with the banking industry. For Brandeis, this relationship was one of the roots of corruption within the state, particularly because of the stranglehold that the industry and its lobby had over politicians. Nowhere was this relationship more evident than in the influence of the leading financier and investment banker of America's Progressive Era, J.P Morgan, who directly and indirectly directed American economic policy, particularly during and following the Panic of 1907. I found myself reflecting on Judge Brandeis' argument on the danger of a lawless government in the context of the recent (now withdrawn) appointment of board chairs of the Sector Education and Training Authority (SETA) and the consolidated general report on local government audit outcomes by the Auditor-General (AG). A few weeks ago, the Higher Education and Training Minister, Dr Nobuhle Nkabane, announced the board chairs of SETAs that comprised largely of African National Congress (ANC) leaders and former leaders. Following public uproar, the minister withdrew the appointments and indicated that the process would be redone. But while she claims that the withdrawal is indicative of her regard for the voices of the people, her actions border dangerously on lawlessness, or at the very least, very serious unethical conduct. That the minister presided over the appointment process and signed off on it as the Executive Authority, and then failed to account and explain her actions, choosing to restart the process, is a dereliction of duty. In South African labour law, dereliction of duty, which refers to an employee's intentional or conscious failure to perform their duties, is a serious offence, potentially leading to dismissal. The AG's report paints a debilitating picture of the state of municipal finances in the country. Only 41 of the country's 257 municipalities received clean audits. In cases of those that received unqualified audits with findings, which amount to 99, the issue of financial mismanagement is at the centre. Of particular interest for me is the City of Johannesburg, the nerve-centre of the national and regional economy, and a city that I call home. That the metro is in a state of collapse is no longer a question. It scores highest in all areas of poor performance - having the highest unauthorised expenditure at an alarming R2.8 billion, the highest water losses at R2.9 billion and the highest electricity losses at R4.9 billion. The metro also has high levels of fruitless and wasteful expenditure, with the amount standing at over R350 million in the last three years. The AG's report also noted poor governance not only in the municipality and its entities. But of significance is the criminality that the AG flagged. According to the report, nearly R1 billion in contracts in the City of Johannesburg were awarded to companies with close ties to employees of the municipality, including councillors, who failed to declare conflicts of interest in the 2023/2024 financial year. This is in direct violation of the law. The Public Administration Management Act (PAMA) 11 of 2014, specifically Section 8 (2), and Regulation 13 (c) of the Public Service Regulations, 2016, prohibit State employees from conducting business with the State or being a director of a company doing so. What this indicates is that there is a flagrant disregard for the law in the City of Johannesburg and other municipalities across the country. These are two of many instances in which the political leadership of South Africa has been very casual about being party to or presiding over complete lawlessness and immorality. It has become so embedded in our society that it does not shock anyone anymore. It is just another news item – another point of discussion on social media before something else grabs our attention. But this should not be the case. The people of South Africa should be ceaseless in challenging the lawlessness of our government whenever it rears its ugly head. Forcing the minister to withdraw her appointments was a step in the right direction. We should do more of this. As Brandeis so correctly asserted, the government should never engage in acts of lawlessness because this breeds contempt for the law and invites every man and woman to become a law unto him/herself. This breeding of anarchy is the foundation on which the erosion of the state is built. Malaika, an award-winning and bestselling author, is a geographer and researcher at the Institute for Pan African Thought and Conversation. She is a PhD in Geography candidate at the University of Bayreuth in Germany.
Eyewitness News
4 days ago
- Politics
- Eyewitness News
AmaZulu Traditional Prime Minister confident Zulu royal family will soon unite
BLOEMFONTEIN - The Zulu traditional prime ministry is confident the Zulu royal family will soon unite and put their differences aside. This, as members of the royal family, still do not share a common opinion on the kingship. Some want the king's older brother, Prince Simakade, to become king, while some remain adamant that Misuzulu kaZwelithini is the rightful heir. ALSO READ: - Judgment reserved in Ramaphosa's appeal matter on recognising King Misuzulu as Zulu heir - Prince Mbonisi says late King Zwelithini's siblings stripped of right to identify next Zulu king - Zulu regiments call on opposing factions to unite under King Misuzulu to achieve stability Disputes on the succession have once again played out in the courts as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) heard arguments over two days on the identification of the king. For the past two days, the succession matter of the Zulu family was subject to the court. This time around, arguments focused on whether King Misuzulu was properly recognised by government. In December 2023, the Pretoria High Court invalidated the king's recognition, and this sparked more legal challenges, with the SCA approached to reverse the High Court, while some wanted the ruling to continue. Meanwhile, a cordial mood demeanour was displayed between opposing factions in the royal family. Traditional Prime Minister Inkosi Phathisizwe Chiliza said this is a good sign. 'There will be peace in the royal family. If you can see here in court, besides the fact that some were sitting on different sides, but when they were singing, they were singing together.' Chiliza said that whatever the outcome will be on the appeal, unity will still prevail.
The Citizen
4 days ago
- Politics
- The Citizen
King Misuzulu recognition: Prince Mbonisi wants throne battle to be referred back to Zulu royal family
The prince's lawyer asked for President Cyril Ramaphosa's appeal to be dismissed with costs. King Misuzulu kaZwelithini with President Cyril Ramaphosa at the unveiling of the King Shaka statue in Durban on 7 November 2024. Picture: Gallo Images/Siyabonga Sokhela The lawyer for Prince Mbonisi Zulu, the brother of the late Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu, says the ongoing royal succession saga should be sent back to the Zulu royal family to restart the identification process. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on Thursday continued hearing arguments in an application for leave to appeal, filed by President Cyril Ramaphosa. The president is seeking to overturn a 2023 ruling by the Gauteng High Court in Pretoria that declared his recognition of King Misuzulu kaZwelithini as unlawful. King Misuzulu ascended to the throne following the deaths of King Zwelithini and Queen Regent Mantfombi Dlamini in 2021. Ramaphosa then officially presented King Misuzulu with a certificate of recognition at Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) on 29 October 2022. Prince Mbonisi challenges Ramaphosa's recognition of King Misuzulu The president's legal team argued On Wednesday that he acted within the provisions of the Traditional and Khoi/San Leadership Act when recognising King Misuzulu. The recognition followed a KZN High Court decision, which found that King Misuzulu's identification –based on a royal family meeting held on 14 May 2021 – complied with Zulu customary law. However, Prince Simakade Zulu challenged the legitimacy of that meeting, stating that it had been convened under false pretences. He claimed the identification process, therefore, failed to adhere to customary law. Prince Mbonisi's legal representative, Advocate Menzi Simelane, expressed similar concerns in court on Thursday. Simelane told the SCA bench that the late king, while a monarch, was first and foremost the head of his own household – comprising himself, his wives, and his children. ALSO READ: AmaZulu throne battle: Ramaphosa argues he recognised King Misuzulu, not appointed him Therefore, the customs and rituals specific to his immediate family must be observed just as much as the broader traditions of the Zulu nation. He argued that if proper customary procedures had been followed, Prince Mbonisi and his siblings would not have been excluded from their role in the process of identifying the next king. 'The case being made is that in our own family, Prince Mbonisi, being the most elder now that the king has since been deceased, could not lead that family in the manner that custom dictates for the sole reason, and no other, that there were other participants who got themselves involved in those processes and things turned out the way that they turned out. 'But by Zulu customs strictly, everybody should have observed the leadership in that house, in that family, in the same way that it happens in every other clan,' Simelane said. Watch the court proceedings below: He called for Ramaphosa's appeal to be dismissed with costs and requested that the dispute be sent back to the royal family to begin the identification process anew. 'The point would be 'what should happen then', the matter would be referred to the appropriate place, which is the Zulu royal family, to do what they ordinarily would have done.' King Misuzulu's identification questioned Meanwhile, Advocate Thabani Masuku, representing the Zulu royal princesses, argued that Ramaphosa failed to confirm whether the May 2021 meeting involved recognised royal family members. Masuku contended that the validity of the recognition decision hinged on the legitimacy of the identification process. 'In other words, a lawful identification decision is a requirement for a lawful exercise of a recognition decision. 'We have submitted that the president did not have a lawful identification before him. 'He also did not have an application by the royal family that could have justified him exercising the powers that he did in recognising the King Misuzulu.' The judgement in the matter has been reserved and will be delivered at a later stage.
eNCA
4 days ago
- Politics
- eNCA
Battle for AmaZulu kingship wraps up at Supreme Court of Appeal
BLOEMFONTEIN - The battle for the AmaZulu throne wrapped up at the Supreme Court of Appeal in Bloemfontein. The President is challenging a High Court ruling setting aside his recognition of King Misuzulu KaZwelithini. A faction of the royal family argues that President Cyril Ramaphosa did not follow due process. In 2023, the High Court ruled the President had failed to follow due process in issuing the certification. But, the President says the court was mistaken in that he was recognising and not appointing. Prince Mbonisi Zulu is opposing the application. He says the President acted on an unlawful decision from the AmaZulu Royal House.
