R1.5 Million Later, He Still Wanted More: Tribunal Rejects Estranged Husband’s Claim to Late Wife’s Pension

In a tale of strained ties, legal battles, and contested grief, a South African tribunal has closed the door on one man’s fight for a pension payout that was never his to begin with.

When Cynthia Thandi Ndlovu passed away in August 2019, she left behind two children and a pension fund worth just over R1.1 million. What should have been a straightforward allocation of her estate turned into a long and bitter legal fight, as her estranged husband, Alexanda Moshimane Molokwane, stepped forward to claim what he believed was his share.

He had already received R1.5 million from the Road Accident Fund (RAF). But that wasn’t enough.

A Marriage That Had Already Broken Down

Molokwane and Ndlovu were still legally married at the time of her death, but by then, their relationship had long since fallen apart. In fact, Ndlovu had filed for divorce, obtained a restraining order against Molokwane, and lived separately. She had no legal obligation to support him under their marital regime, and according to her family, she wasn’t doing so.

Despite this, Molokwane argued that he was still financially dependent on her and that as her surviving spouse, he should receive part of her pension benefit.

The Initial Payout and the Children’s Challenge

Initially, the Discovery retirement annuity funds split the R1.1 million equally between Molokwane and Ndlovu’s two children. But this was short-lived.

Ndlovu’s children challenged the distribution, submitting proof to the Pension Funds Adjudicator (PFA) that their mother had not financially supported Molokwane in years. One of Ndlovu’s nieces confirmed that the children were her only real dependants.

As a result, the PFA revised the payout. Molokwane’s share was revoked, and the full amount was reallocated to the two children.

R1.5 Million from RAF: Not Exactly “Dependent”

When the case reached the PFA, one glaring detail stood out: Molokwane had recently received R1.5 million from the RAF.

This raised eyebrows. If he had such a substantial payout, how could he claim financial dependence on his estranged wife?

When asked to prove dependency, Molokwane failed to do so convincingly. His bank statements showed no recent financial contributions from Ndlovu, and he couldn’t provide credible evidence that she had been supporting him in any tangible way.

Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Ruling

Unhappy with the PFA’s ruling, Molokwane escalated the matter to the Financial Services Tribunal (FST). But their response was clear: there was no reason to overturn the original decision.

The tribunal ruled in January 2024 that, considering the RAF payout and lack of supporting evidence, the PFA had made a sound decision. Molokwane’s application for reconsideration was formally dismissed.

A Broader Conversation About Entitlement and Family

The case has stirred conversations online about estate disputes, surviving spouse rights, and what truly defines a dependant. Many social media users have sided with the children, arguing that Molokwane’s actions were more about entitlement than need. Others point to how estate laws can become a battlefield when blended families, estranged marriages, and unclear wills collide.

This case is a reminder: being legally married doesn’t always equal financial entitlement, especially when a partner has walked away long before death does them part.

Also read: EFF Backs Corruption Probe into Law Enforcement, Calls for Independent Leadership

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter, TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com

Source: IOL

Featured Image: The South African