Pretoria - One of the siblings of a mineworker – who suspected that the victim’s wife may have a hand in his death after an autopsy report revealed that he had died an unnatural death – has asked the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg for an urgent order halting his pension payout to his widow.
The woman, only identified as NM in the judgment, said she was lodging the application on behalf of the deceased’s three children. They are not related to his widow, identified as ZM.
NM asked for an urgent order directing the Mineworkers Provident Fund to freeze and preserve the man’s pension fund death benefit, pending the outcome of a police investigation into his death.
She also asked for an order restraining the widow from attempting to access his pension until more light was shed on the cause of death of the man.
The deceased died on January 6 and his death certificate stated that he died of “unnatural causes”.
A medical certificate attached to the death certificate stated that the immediate cause of death was “consistent with alcohol poisoning”.
NM claimed that his widow likely poisoned BM, and that she was a suspect in an ongoing police investigation into his death.
The applicant argued the common law rule that “the bloody hand does not inherit”.
This principle stipulates that no person who causes the death of another person, intentionally or negligently, may inherit from the deceased.
NM told the court that the pension money should be paid into a trust so that his three biological children could benefit from it. She said this should at least be done until the police investigation has been concluded.
Judge SD Wilson, however, said the problem with all of this is that there are no facts in the court papers that link ZM to BM’s death.
“What appears to have aroused NM’s suspicions is the use of the words ‘unnatural causes’ and ‘poisoning’ in the death certificate and the medical certificate. These are plainly matters of concern, and an investigation of BM’s death is no doubt warranted,” the judge said.
He, however, added that no facts were placed before him to suggest that ZM was involved in BM’s death, or even that BM’s death was the result of any voluntary or culpable act of any other person.
He said while the applicant did mention that the police were investigating the death, she did not set out the nature and progress of that investigation.
“NM stated that ZM is a ‘suspect’ in the investigation, but that allegation is not supported by any primary facts. Much less is it confirmed by the police officers responsible for the investigation.”
The judge concluded that under these circumstances, however far the “bloody hand” principle stretches, there was simply no case made out that ZM had any role at all in BM’s death.
Pretoria News