Judge orders pension fund to retain 50% of man's payout for his wife

The Johanneburg high court has interdicted the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) from paying out 50% of a man’s benefit pending the finalisation of his divorce. 

The court said it was strange that the man, who was recently dismissed from work and failed to honour his promise to increase child maintenance, was suddenly able to fund the opposition of his wife’s court application to prevent the GEPF from paying out more than half of his pension. 

The two were married in community of property, and the husband instituted divorce proceedings in November 2023. 

The wife argued regarding the urgency of her application that since her husband had been dismissed, there would be nothing stopping the GEPF from processing the payment of his pension benefits unless the court issued an interdict. She also argued that her husband’s financial circumstances had taken a knock, and he had not honoured his previous undertaking to increase maintenance for their three minor children. 

Though she said he had made an undertaking that he would not cash in the pension payout, she told the court it would be reckless to take his word soon after he failed to honour his undertaking to pay extra maintenance for his children.

The wife argued that she was entitled to 50% of the assets in their joint estate because they were married in community of property. 

She further argued that she suspected her husband might withdraw the pension payout since his dismissal appeared to be abrupt. 

Opposing her application, the husband argued that an undertaking had been given in November 2024 that the assets forming part of their joint estate would not be squandered. The assurance was again made in February 2025 through his attorneys. Ultimately, he argued, that his wife’s application amounted to abuse and should be frowned upon by the court.

The court noted that it would be difficult to take his undertaking seriously since he had recently withdrawn a previous undertaking to increase maintenance for his children, and therefore found there was no reason to believe he might not go back on his word.

The court said the husband failed to demonstrate any prejudice on his side if 50% of his pension benefits were frozen. 

The court found it “mind-boggling” that the husband had the energy and financial muscle to oppose his wife’s application if the essence of the order she was seeking was in sync with his undertaking that the assets forming part of the joint estate would remain safe. 

The judge concluded that the fact that the husband was able to provide funding to oppose his wife’s application but had no money for the maintenance of his three minor children should say a lot about his intentions. 

Ultimately, he found that the husband was ill-advised in opposing the application and granted the order interdicting the GEPF from paying out 50% of the husband’s pension benefit pending the finalisation of the divorce. The husband was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

SowetanLIVE