Late former deputy president David Mabuza. (Delwyn Verasamy/M&G)
The Mpumalanga High Court has reserved judgment in the legal row over late former deputy president David Mabuza’s R44 million pension to 30 September.
On Tuesday, Judge Hank Roelfse said he needed time to look at further evidence in the matter and ordered financial services provider Alexforbes to file affidavits explaining the discrepancy between the schedule of benefits and the policy document.
“They shall file an affidavit no later than 16:00 on Friday 26 September 2025, the other parties, that is, the applicant and first respondent, shall be entitled to file affidavits in response to the affidavit of the second respondent no later than Monday 29 September 2025 at 16:00,” Roelfse said.
Last week, Mabuza’s daughter Tamara Silinda filed an urgent application at the Mpumalanga High Court to stop Alexforbes from paying the R44 million to Nonhlahla Mnisi, who was the second lady of the country when Mabuza was Ramaphosa’s deputy.
Silinda is demanding that Alexforbes pay her R40 000 monthly towards her basic maintenance, including clothing, transport and medical expenses. She says she was dependent on Mabuza’s medical aid, hence her demands for her medical expenses to be covered from his pension money.
She is also demanding that Alexforbes pay R127 990 towards her yearly tuition fees at the University of Cape Town, pending the finalisation of the matter.
Her mother, Emunah Silinda, is the first applicant in the matter and Tamara is the second applicant. Mnisi has been cited as the first respondent, Alexforbes as the second respondent, the Master of the High Court as the third, the presidency as the fourth, the government pension administrator as the fifth and Mabuza’s six other dependents as the other respondents.
Silinda claims that her mother Emunah was married to Mabuza in terms of customary law and that the marriage is valid and subsisting.
“My mother was married to the deceased in terms of customary law and the marriage was never dissolved during the lifetime of the deceased,” she said.
This has, however, been denied by Mnisi.
Her lawyers argued that her being the nominated sole beneficiary in terms of the living annuity was correct, adding that maintenance claims should be submitted against the estate, not the annuity held by Alexforbes.
While Mnisi argued that in her papers, and through her lawyer, that she was the sole beneficiary to Mabuza’s pension fund, Silinda’s lawyer, advocate Doctor Sibuyi, told the court that Alexforbes had not done its work properly, and should have ensured that, before payment was made, all dependents were considered.
“What it means is that if I take money and put it in Alexander Forbes, then when I die, they are not even going to investigate, that is what they are saying. Their own policy says any other person I have nominated is just a guide and it’s within the discretion of the trustee to make a determination, so obviously they are overlooking their own work,” Sibuyi said.
“What surprises me is that, in their own policy, they have got to make enquiries and they have got to make sure they check who the dependents are.”
Sibuyi said the R44 million should not be released to Mnisi alone, because there were dependents who would be left destitute as there was no other money they could benefit from. He said Mnisi was aware of Mabuza’s beneficiaries and children.
“They were on public TV when the deceased died and obviously at his funeral, all seven to eight children who were there, but she doesn’t say in her own papers that I concede that there are dependents,” he said.
“What she is saying is that, in the policy, I have been nominated. She has had omission; she had a legal duty to even inform the fund that, yes, I’m nominated, but then there are dependents. The dependents are well known to her. When the deceased was alive, the applicant indicated that at some stage, she was the one who was sent to deposit money to them.
On Monday, Alexforbes spokesperson Fiona Rollason said the company would not oppose the application by Silinda, but declined to explain why it had decided to pay the pension to Mnisi.
“As a financial services provider, we are committed to treating all client matters with the highest level of confidentiality. For this reason, we are unable to share further details on the specifics of the case,” Rollason said, adding that the company would respect the judicial process and abide by the decision of the court.