Unmarried but Cohabiting: What the Law Says About Inheriting a Partner’s Estate

Cohabitation, also referred to as a permanent life partnership, is defined as a relationship where couples stay together and undertake a reciprocal obligation to support each other. It is an informal and unregulated long-term partnership which mirrors a formal marriage. Despite the lack of regulation, this concept has become very common in South Africa and research has proven an increasingly high number of people living as permanent life partners.

Cohabitation, also referred to as a permanent life partnership, is defined as a relationship where couples stay together and undertake a reciprocal obligation to support each other. It is an informal and unregulated long-term partnership which mirrors a formal marriage. Despite the lack of regulation, this concept has become very common in South Africa and research has proven an increasingly high number of people living as permanent life partners.

The lack of regulation meant that there were no legal recognition of such a relationship and the consequences thereto. Couples in permanent life partnerships were not entitled to the legal benefits which married partners were, such as inheriting intestate after the death of a partner, as such, a partner was not considered to be “a spouse” in accordance with the narrow definition of a spouse in terms of Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act.

The legal position was challenged and ultimately changed by the case of Bwanya v Master of the High Court 2022 (3) SA 250 (CC). In this case the Constitutional Court assessed whether a surviving partner in a permanent heterosexual life partnership and in which the partners had undertaken the reciprocal duty to support each other, is entitled to inherit intestate from the estate of the deceased partner. The court held that the exclusion of a partner in a permanent life partnership from the definition of surviving spouse in terms of Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act constituted unfair discrimination based on marital status. The court argued that the absence of a formal marriage should not put couples at a disadvantage if all the substantive characteristics of a marriage were present in their relationship. As a result of this case, Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act is now interpreted to include permanent life partner in the definition of surviving spouse.

The precedent established in the Bwanya case was confirmed in the case of LL v CH NO and others [2023] ZAGPJHC. The court in the LL case ruled in favour of the surviving partner, ordering that he is entitled to inherit 50% of the deceased’s estate.

Currently, surviving partners in permanent life partnerships are entitled to inherit intestate from the estates of deceased partners, as they qualify as surviving “spouses” in terms of Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act. However, partners still need to provide evidence that the elements of a formal marriage were present in their permanent life partnership. Despite legal advancements, gaps remain in the protection afforded to cohabitants under South African Law. As a result, life partners are therefore encouraged to enter into a cohabitation agreement or formalize their relationship through a formal marriage procedure.

Elize Krause, assisted by Adivhaho Mudanalwo

October 8, 2025
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest