In January 2026, the High Court held that a completed beneficiary nomination form that reached the insurer during the lifetime of the Insured, was effective despite an incorrect policy number noted on the form. The court highlighted that administrative errors that do not affect the clarity of the nomination, will not override the insured’s intention.

The insured took out a life cover policy effective from 1 January 2015. She died on 6 July 2021, triggering a death benefit of about R1.230 million and a funeral benefit under the policy. In October and November 2020, she submitted beneficiary nomination documents and engaged with an employee of the insurer, clarifying that she intended to nominate her sister, her brother, and a foster child for the life cover. She erroneously submitted a form which referenced the retirement annuity policy number instead of her life cover policy number. The insurer brought interpleader proceedings to resolve competing claims.

The dispute turned on the interpretation of the policy’s “General Plan Provisions” governing beneficiary appointments. The policy permitted the policyholder to appoint beneficiaries for death benefits, stating that an appointment would be effective if it was in writing, signed, and reached the insurer’s head office before death. The wording did not require use of a particular form or the insertion of a correct policy number, and it did not stipulate that an administrative mistake would invalidate an otherwise compliant appointment.

The court applied interpretation principles, emphasising that the exercise requires consideration of text, context, and purpose. The court held that the policy did not require completion of a specific form or accurate policy number entry, and reading in such a requirement would effectively add terms not agreed by the parties. A recorded call with the insurer confirmed the insured’s clear intention to nominate the specified individuals for the life cover and showed that the insurer treated the form as an administrative tool to facilitate processing rather than as a contractual condition for validity. The incorrect policy number was an immaterial administrative error that did not affect the clarity of the nomination or the creation of rights and duties under the contract. The signed, delivered nomination was sufficient to prove the stipulation of rights in favour of the beneficiaries under the contract

The court held that the nominations were valid and effective, and that the identified beneficiaries were entitled to the life cover proceeds. It ordered the insurer to pay the death and funeral benefits to those beneficiaries and directed that the claimants’ costs could be recovered from the proceeds on a party-and-party scale.

The only thing surprising about this clearly correct judgment is that the nominations were challenged at all.

Mahlathi and Another v Mpako (123/2023) [2026] ZAECMKHC 5 (20 January 2026)