FATHER FIGHTS CHILDREN FOR LATE WIFE’S INHERITANCE
Stephen Morubana claims his son, sister-in-law and the late wife’s employer connived to deny him of his inheritance. The late wife’s employer, however is adamant they acted according to the deceased’s wishes’
Six years since the passing on of his wife, Stephen Morubana is still determined to fight for what he terms rightful benefits. Morubana believes his elder son and sister-in-law connived with the University of Botswana (UB) to deny him a stake from his late wife’s death benefit. He feels authorities failed him and is now taking the matter to court.
Pearl Morubana, who was a secretary at UB’s Distance Learning department, died of stroke in October 2015 leaving benefits totalling just over P1.3 million.
Narrating his story, Morubana said he was shocked that the initial benefit schedule he was shown by the University was changed while he was waiting to receive the money.
“We were called by the university where we were shown that I and three of my children would get 25% each from the total of her insurance and pension benefits,” he said.
“At the meeting, it was agreed that since my firstborn daughter was now late, we would also share her 25%. My late wife’s elder sister, Sally Pillar, objected to me getting anything saying I did not deserve it.”
Morubana said he was shocked when the University called them again stating that they had discovered the latest beneficiary nomination form, which was left by the deceased.
“In this form dated May 29, 2015, my two sons Tebogo and Thabiso are the only enlisted beneficiaries at 50% each. I scrutinised the document and realised there were inconsistencies. The birth dates of my sons were wrong, some details were not filled and Pillar was listed as a guardian to our then, teenage son. I believe my son Tebogo and Pillar were behind the form with the help of someone at the university. I raised my concerns with the university, but they went ahead and awarded me only P72,000 stating that it was a discretion by the Board of Trustees,” he said.
Quizzed on his relationship with his late wife and children, Morubana said up to the day his wife passed away, they had no issues that could prompt his wife to leave him out of her benefits. He, however, confirmed that he had not moved in with his family yet to a UB flat allocated to his wife earlier in 2015.
“I stayed behind in Tlokweng where we rented because we had issues with the landlord. We were fine as a family and I was supposed to join them before she passed away,” he said.
Further pressed to establish whether their marriage had any problems, Morubana admitted that they had incidents where he assaulted his wife, but dismissed it as a possible reason for the family leaving him behind in Tlokweng and also his wife denying him benefits.
He also could not state the reasons why he last saw his firstborn son, Tebogo at his wife’s funeral only stating that his children were poisoned against him.
Pillar and Tebogo would not comment and referred all enquiries to UB.
Sources at the University, who wished to remain anonymous, accused Morubana of having been an abusive husband hence being deserted by his own children and custody to the minor granted to their aunt.
UB deputy vice-chancellor finance and administration is said to be handling the matter following Morubana reporting to the permanent secretary at the tertiary education ministry. The office could not respond to enquiries at press time.
UB’s then manager, Staff Welfare and Benefits in 2016 directed Morubana to approach courts stating that they acted according to the wishes of his late wife.
“You requested to be furnished with documents leading to the allocation of benefits to beneficiaries of the deceased, Mrs Pearl Morubana. We furnished you with such documents as obtained from the deceased’s personal files. As to whether the handwriting or the signature is not that of the deceased; the names have been misspelt or ages or identity cards not correctly captured, that is beyond our office to explain who could have completed such forms in the absence of the former employee.
Having raised this issue we realised that in all documents that the deceased completed, the signature and handwriting are not the same. However, we have no option but to believe it was the deceased who completed the forms. If you question the above, it is upon you to engage the relevant offices with the expertise to prove if someone else completed the form other than the deceased,” reads the letter.