- The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the daughter’s challenge to her stepmother’s maintenance claim.
- The judges found that the widow had shown she could not reasonably support herself after her husband’s death.
- The ruling confirms that a surviving spouse’s maintenance claim can take priority over the inheritance of other beneficiaries.
A widow has successfully defended her right to claim maintenance from her late husband’s estate after the Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the deceased’s daughter. The decision brings to an end a dispute that delayed the administration of the estate for years.
The case concerns the estate of the late Johannes Jacob Prinsloo, who died on 29 January 2015. His daughter, Jocelyn de Bruyn, challenged a decision by the Master of the High Court in Pretoria to approve a maintenance claim lodged by the widow, Martha Johanna Prinsloo, under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act.
De Bruyn argued that the maintenance claim was excessive and should not have been accepted because it relied mainly on actuarial calculations using information from the widow. She also claimed that the maintenance claim effectively deprived the heirs of their inheritance.
Estate left with nothing for heirs
In his will, the deceased left an immovable property to his daughter, while granting his wife a lifelong right to use and benefit from that property (usufruct).
After her husband’s death, the widow lodged a maintenance claim against the estate. The initial claim was higher than the value of the estate. After the Master raised concerns, the actuarial calculations were revised, and the claim was reduced so that it matched the available amount in the estate, avoiding insolvency.
Although this adjustment prevented the estate from becoming insolvent, it also meant that there were no assets left to distribute to the beneficiaries.
De Bruyn objected to the liquidation and distribution account, arguing that the maintenance claim was unjustified. The Master dismissed her objection, which led to a review in the High Court in Pretoria. Both the High Court and a Full Bench rejected her arguments before the matter reached the Supreme Court of Appeal.
Widow established her need for maintenance
Writing for a unanimous court, Justice D Molefe explained that the law does not automatically give every surviving spouse the right to maintenance just because they were married. Instead, the surviving spouse must show they cannot provide for their own reasonable maintenance from personal income and resources.
Justice Molefe said, “The respondent still has to satisfy the requirements of section 3 of the Surviving Spouses Act – that she needs reasonable maintenance and cannot support herself from her own income or resources.”
The court found that the widow had met these requirements. She had been married to the deceased for 26 years and was 70 years old when he died. She had no formal qualifications or significant work history outside her husband’s business.
After his death, she earned about R9,000 a month working for her son, received occasional rental income from a chalet on the property, and had limited investment proceeds. The court found that all of this was not enough to meet her reasonable maintenance needs.
The judges also accepted that she remained responsible for medical aid, insurance, and other household expenses.
Daughter produced no competing evidence
The daughter argued that the maintenance claim was based on actuarial reports that had not been independently verified.
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that while the daughter criticised the calculations, she did not provide any expert evidence to show they were wrong or unreasonable.
Justice Molefe noted, “The appellant did not present her own view of what would be reasonable, nor did she provide a report from an actuary of her choice.”
The court held that unsupported criticism of the actuarial evidence was not enough to overturn the Master’s decision.
Deceased intended to provide for his wife
The judges also noted the importance of the deceased’s will, which showed that he intended to continue supporting his wife after his death by granting her a lifelong right to use the property.
The court found that the widow’s financial position had worsened considerably after her husband’s death. The evidence showed that she could not enjoy the full benefit of the usufruct because the daughter and her family occupied the property, which limited her ability to generate rental income.
The widow also had to pay for water and electricity used by the daughter’s family, while receiving no rental income from them.
Justice Molefe said, “It is clear that the respondent’s standard of living has significantly deteriorated since her husband’s death, and that this is mainly due to the appellant’s conduct.”
Appeal dismissed
The Supreme Court of Appeal concluded that the widow had proved her entitlement to maintenance under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, and that the Master had correctly dismissed the daughter’s objection.
Justice Molefe stated, “The respondent’s maintenance claim meets the requirements of the Surviving Spouses Act. She has established the right to maintenance.”
The appeal was dismissed with costs, bringing the long-running estate dispute to an end.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
