Maintenance of opposite sex life partners upon the death of one of the partners

This case concerned whether it was unconstitutional for opposite sex life partners to be excluded from the definition of ‘survivor’ in the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act (the Act). The Act allowed the surviving spouse to claim maintenance from the estate of the deceased spouse if they were unable to support themselves. The respondent claimed that persons who lived akin to husband and wife, but were not married, should be afforded the same protection as persons who were married. 
The majority found it did not constitute unfair discrimination. The Act sought to extend the maintenance obligation of those in a marriage after the death of one of the spouses. The surviving spouse did not obtain a benefit from the State or a third party. Further, marriage is an important institution, which the State has an international law duty to protect. It forms the basis for family life. It is thus not unreasonable to differentiate between married couples and unmarried couples. The distinction between married and unmarried people cannot be said to be unfair when considered in the larger context of the rights and obligations uniquely attached to marriage. Thus, the constitutionality challenge fails.
This case has recently been overturned by Bwanye below.