Legal victory for heterosexual life partners

In the recent decision of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court and others, the court discussed the legal status of heterosexual life partners, specifically the rights of a surviving life partner to the proceeds of a deceased partner’s estate.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Unit

The context
The parties in this case had been partners in a permanent heterosexual life partnership for close to two years, with the deceased having asked the applicant for her hand in marriage before his death. Their intention to marry was supported by the deceased’s diary entries, the fact that he provided for the applicant financially and had made plans to buy a car for her, and that the two had planned to start a cleaning business together. Furthermore, the parties lived together, supported one another and their relationship had the characteristics of a marriage.

The precedent
The legal position prior to this judgment was that heterosexual life partners were excluded from inheriting or claiming in terms of the Intestate Succession Act as well as the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act as evidenced in the Volks v Robinson case. This was based on the notion that heterosexual couples had the choice to formalise their union.

The argument
The applicant submitted to the court that there was a contractual duty of support between herself and the deceased and argued that she was being discriminated against based on section 9(3) of the Constitution on the basis of marital status. The section provides that, “the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”

The decision
The court decided that there was no reason why heterosexual life partnerships should be excluded from the Intestate Succession Act or the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. It held that the applicant and the deceased were in a permanent heterosexual life partnership and questioned the constitutionality of section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act in as far as it excludes partners in permanent heterosexual life partnerships from claiming maintenance in terms of this Act.

 Due to the court’s findings, the parties agreed that the applicant would receive benefits bestowed upon spouses in terms of a settlement agreement reached by all parties involved, until the Legislature makes amendments to the above-mentioned Acts.

The outcome of this case is significant for women who have built a life with their partners, and find themselves in a vulnerable position when their partners pass away, as it means they are now able to lay claim to the deceased partner’s estate.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.

Recommended for you

Property Blog Articles | Advice | Contractual Matters | Market News
Legislative Guidelines

SPLUMA certificates required for property transfers in Mpumalanga[post_view before=""]

SPLUMA stands for the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act, and SPLUMA certificates are governed by the act together with the by-laws of each local municipality.

Read More
My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

Trust investments and the Legal Practice Act[post_view before=""]

The Legal Practice Act, which has replaced the Attorneys Act, has made some changes regarding monies paid into attorney trust accounts and the investment of this money on a client’s instructions.

Read More
Historical monuments and renovation restrictions
Legislative Guidelines

Destruction of a sectional title scheme: precautionary steps to take[post_view before=""]

There are several reasons why a landowner or developer may decide to build a new development in the place of an existing sectional title scheme. For example, the existing scheme may be dated and no longer suited to the area. Or the demand for residential units may be very high but the old development is undesirable.

Read More
My name has changed - what happens to my property’s title deed?
Legislative Guidelines

21 facts you should know about the POPI Act[post_view before=""]

On 1 July 2021, the Protection Of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPI Act) comes into full force and effect. While the Act was signed into law on 19 November 2013, the majority of its sections were only implemented on 1 July 2020, with a one-year grace period. Now, with the remaining sections coming into effect on 30 June 2021, the Act becomes enforceable by the Regulator.

Read More
Minors and immovable property
Legislative Guidelines

Court ruling: Can you sell a property that’s not in your name?[post_view before=""]

The recent judgement in the matter of Tomlinson and Another v Tomlinson N.O and Others (11764/2015) [2021] ZAKZDHC 8 (19 March 2021) in the Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban has drawn attention to whether someone is able to sell a property if he or she is not the registered owner.

Read More

Need more Snymans content?

Sign up for our monthly newsletter.

Legal victory for heterosexual life partners

In the recent decision of Bwanya v The Master of the High Court and others, the court discussed the legal status of heterosexual life partners, specifically the rights of a surviving life partner to the proceeds of a deceased partner’s estate.

The process to approval for extending a Sectional Title Unit

The context
The parties in this case had been partners in a permanent heterosexual life partnership for close to two years, with the deceased having asked the applicant for her hand in marriage before his death. Their intention to marry was supported by the deceased’s diary entries, the fact that he provided for the applicant financially and had made plans to buy a car for her, and that the two had planned to start a cleaning business together. Furthermore, the parties lived together, supported one another and their relationship had the characteristics of a marriage.

The precedent
The legal position prior to this judgment was that heterosexual life partners were excluded from inheriting or claiming in terms of the Intestate Succession Act as well as the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act as evidenced in the Volks v Robinson case. This was based on the notion that heterosexual couples had the choice to formalise their union.

The argument
The applicant submitted to the court that there was a contractual duty of support between herself and the deceased and argued that she was being discriminated against based on section 9(3) of the Constitution on the basis of marital status. The section provides that, “the state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.”

The decision
The court decided that there was no reason why heterosexual life partnerships should be excluded from the Intestate Succession Act or the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. It held that the applicant and the deceased were in a permanent heterosexual life partnership and questioned the constitutionality of section 1 of the Intestate Succession Act in as far as it excludes partners in permanent heterosexual life partnerships from claiming maintenance in terms of this Act.

 Due to the court’s findings, the parties agreed that the applicant would receive benefits bestowed upon spouses in terms of a settlement agreement reached by all parties involved, until the Legislature makes amendments to the above-mentioned Acts.

The outcome of this case is significant for women who have built a life with their partners, and find themselves in a vulnerable position when their partners pass away, as it means they are now able to lay claim to the deceased partner’s estate.

Follow Snymans on Facebook for more legal information, tips and news about property.