Pension interest and divorce

“I’ve been married for 20 years, but my marriage is in trouble and I’m facing the very real possibility that I may get divorced soon. My husband has a good pension that we’ve planned to use for our retirement, and I am worried that I will not be entitled to any share of that should we get divorced because we are married out of community of property with the accrual? Will this be the case?”

For purposes of divorce the pension interest in a pension fund, provident fund and/or preservation fund is defined as the benefits to which a member would have been entitled to in terms of the rules of such fund if his membership is terminated due to resignation, at the date of divorce. In layperson terms – it is the monies and interest accrued in the fund from the date of participation in the fund to the date of ‘deemed’ resignation and as such will not include the entire amount that the fund would pay out to the member at eventual retirement.

The pension interest in a retirement annuity fund differs from that of the pension fund, provident fund and/or preservation fund in that the pension interest in a retirement annuity is defined as the sum of the member’s contributions to the fund up to the date of divorce plus a total amount of simple annual interest on those contributions up to that date at the prescribed rate. As such the value of a pension interest in a retirement annuity for purposes of divorce proceedings will be less than the actual fund value at the date of divorce. 

There is a common misconception that the pension interest for purposes of divorce is calculated from the date of marriage until the date of divorce, but as can be seen from above, this is not the case and parties should be wary of this when entering into marriage or contemplating divorce, and consider addressing this in their ante-nuptial agreement should the default position not be appropriate.

In terms of the ability to share in the pension interest of a spouse at divorce, the current position in our law is as follows:

Married in community of property – spouse can share in the pension interest.
Married out of community of property before 1984 – the pension interest may be included if a court considers that a redistribution of assets is warranted, with such pension interest taken into account for the redistribution of assets at the divorce.
Married out of community of property after 1984 and with the accrual – spouses can share in the pension interest to the extent that such is included in the calculation of accrual, and provided the pension interest was not specifically excluded in the ante-nuptial contract.
Married out of community of property after 1984 and without the accrual – the pension interest cannot be shared.

In your situation, your spouse’s pension interest, calculated on the basis as indicated above, will form part of the calculation of accrual at divorce unless the pension interest has been excluded in your antenuptial agreement. It may be prudent to consult with a family law practitioner should the possibility of divorce become a reality.

December 14, 2016
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