Tlali and Another v Government Employees Pension Fund and Others (8000/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 843 (27 August 2024)
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPPHC 843
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Basson AJ
- Case number
- 8000/2020
More details
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Panel
- Basson AJ
- Case number
- 8000/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Second Respondent was the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali and therefore entitled to claim maintenance under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. The Second Applicant was interdicted from finalising the deceased estate or making any payments or distributions until the maintenance claim was finalised. The applications and relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion were dismissed. Costs were awarded against the First Applicant in respect of the initial and amended notices of motion, including the counter application, but no costs order was made against the Second Applicant.
Court disposition
Applications and relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion dismissed. Second Respondent declared life partner of the deceased. Second Applicant interdicted from finalising the estate pending maintenance claim. Costs awarded against First Applicant.
Orders
- The point in limine raised in the counter application is not upheld.
- No order as to costs is made in respect of the point in limine.
- Both applications and the relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion are dismissed.
- It is declared that the Second Respondent was the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali.
- The Second Applicant is interdicted from finalising the deceased estate of Khathatso Clifton Tlali or from making any payments or distributions therefrom until the Second Respondent’s claim for maintenance in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act has been finalised.
- First Applicant is ordered to pay all costs in respect of the initial and amended Notices of Motion including the costs in respect of the counter application.
- No order for costs is made in respect of Second Applicant.
02
Material facts
Parties
Tlali Dikeledi Alina
Applicant Counsel: Mr M D HlatshwayoTlali Dikeledi Alina N.O.
Applicant Counsel: Mr M D HlatshwayoGovernment Employees Pension Fund
RespondentMathenga Matakane Anny
Respondent Counsel: Adv A NellMathenga Matakane Anny N.O.
Respondent Counsel: Adv A Nell03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Application / Correction of Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Second Respondent was the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali.
- 02
Whether the Second Applicant should be interdicted from finalising the deceased estate pending the maintenance claim.
- 03
Whether the applications and relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion should be dismissed.
- 04
Whether costs should be awarded and to whom.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants sought to prevent the respondents from finalising the deceased estate of Khathatso Clifton Tlali and making any payments or distributions therefrom, arguing that the Second Respondent was not entitled to maintenance as a surviving spouse or life partner. They challenged the recognition of the Second Respondent as a life partner and opposed the maintenance claim under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act.
- Respondent
- The respondents argued that the Second Respondent was indeed the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali and was entitled to claim maintenance under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. They sought an interdict to prevent the finalisation of the estate until the maintenance claim was resolved and requested costs against the First Applicant for the applications brought.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990
A surviving life partner may claim maintenance from the deceased estate under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act if the partnership is proven.
- 02
Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990
Interdicts may be granted to prevent the finalisation of a deceased estate pending the determination of a maintenance claim.
- 03
Cilliers, Law of Costs
Costs orders are discretionary and may be awarded against parties who unsuccessfully pursue applications.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Second Respondent was the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali and therefore entitled to claim maintenance under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. The Second Applicant was interdicted from finalising the deceased estate or making any payments or distributions until the maintenance claim was finalised. The applications and relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion were dismissed. Costs were awarded against the First Applicant in respect of the initial and amended notices of motion, including the counter application, but no costs order was made against the Second Applicant.
Obiter and limits
- The correction of the order was necessary to give proper effect to the judgment and ensure that the correct party is interdicted.
- Recognition of life partnerships for maintenance claims is consistent with the evolving jurisprudence on family law and equality.
Court disposition
Applications and relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion dismissed. Second Respondent declared life partner of the deceased. Second Applicant interdicted from finalising the estate pending maintenance claim. Costs awarded against First Applicant.
- The point in limine raised in the counter application is not upheld.
- No order as to costs is made in respect of the point in limine.
- Both applications and the relief sought in the main and amended notices of motion are dismissed.
- It is declared that the Second Respondent was the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali.
- The Second Applicant is interdicted from finalising the deceased estate of Khathatso Clifton Tlali or from making any payments or distributions therefrom until the Second Respondent’s claim for maintenance in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act has been finalised.
- First Applicant is ordered to pay all costs in respect of the initial and amended Notices of Motion including the costs in respect of the counter application.
- No order for costs is made in respect of Second Applicant.
Source and reliance status
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Judgment
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA
CASE NO: 8000/2020
1. REPORTABLE: YES/NO
2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
3. REVISED: YES/NO
DATE: 27/08/2024
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:
In the matter between:
TLALI
DIKELEDI ALINA
First Applicant
TLALI DIKELEDI ALINA N.O.
Second Applicant
and
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND First Respondent
MATHENGA
MATAKANE ANNY
Second Respondent
MATHENGA MATAKANE ANNY N.O. Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
Basson AJ
1.
Paragraph 5 of the order of my judgment handed down on 26 August 2024 reads that:
“5. The Second Respondent is interdicted from finalising the deceased estate of Khathatso Clifton Tlali or from the making of any payments or distributions
therefrom until the Second Respondent’s claim for maintenance in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act has been
finalised.”
2.
This is a patent error and will not give effect to the judgment handed down. Paragraph 5 should read:
“5. The Second Applicant is interdicted from finalising the deceased estate of Khathatso Clifton Tlali or from the making of any payments or distributions
therefrom until the Second Respondent’s claim for maintenance in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act has been
finalised.”
3.
I therefore correct the order I made on 26 August 2024 to read as follows:
[76] I therefore make the following order:
1. The point in limine raised in the counter application, insofar as it may still be necessary, is not upheld.
2. No order as to costs is made in respect of the point in limine.
3. Both of the applications and the relief sought in the main and the amended notices of motion are dismissed.
4. It is declared that the Second Respondent was the life partner of the late Khathatso Clifton Tlali.
5. The Second Applicant is interdicted from finalising the deceased estate of Khathatso Clifton Tlali or from the making of any payments or distributions therefrom until the Second Respondent’s claim for maintenance in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act has been finalised.
6. First Applicant is ordered to pay all costs in respect of the initial and amended Notices of Motion including the costs in respect of the counter application.
7. No order for costs is made in respect of Second Applicant.
4.
I therefore so order.
Gauteng, Pretoria
Date Heard: 16 May 2023 Date of correction of order: 27 August 2024 Attorney for First and Second Applicants: Mr M D Hlatshwayo Advocate for Second and Third Respondents: Adv A Nell.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.