A Bsp Seminars Publication · webb v davis no and others 1998 (2) sa 975 (sca)..... 271 1993 277 harpur no v govindamall and another 1993 (4) sa 751 (a)..... 277 1992 297 hilda holt

A Bsp Seminars Publication

All current publications Bsp Seminars Subscription Service Bsp Stylebook

The SA Common Law on Wills —A Database

All the decisions of the superior courts

Compiled by

Costa Divaris

The SA Common Law on Wills —A Database

All the decisions of the superior courts

Compiled by

Costa Divaris

2019 Edition

Terms and conditions

The SA Common Law on Wills—A Database 2019 ed © 2020 C Divaris Bsp Seminars® Gauteng South Africa

—5 —


User rights This work is made available subject to the authors’ and publisher’s copyright and nonexclusive user rights granted to you to use it solely for your personal or professional purposes and not to distribute it in any form.

Electronic version The electronic version of this work is available by way of e-mail or hyperlink in the form of a PDF file. By supplying the publisher with your email address, you agree to receive email notifications of forthcoming seminars, publications and related offers from BSP Seminars®. To unsubscribe at any time, send an email with the subject ‘No more email’ to [email protected]. Should you be a subscriber, such an e-mail will also terminate your free subscription to the Tax Shock, Horror newsletter.

Provenance, edition and product number Product number in the Bsp Seminars® Store of this 2019 edition (March 2020): nd2021.

Disclaimer This work is not intended to constitute advice on the topics covered. The views expressed are those of the authors and publisher. While reasonable care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of this publication, the authors and publisher expressly disclaim all and any liability to any person relating to anything done or omitted to be done or to the consequences thereof in reliance upon this work, and do not accept responsibility for any loss or damage that may be sustained as a result of reliance by any person on the information contained herein. In particular, anyone who may be affected by statutory provisions dealt with in this work is strongly advised to refer to the relevant Government Gazette as originally published.

Copyright ©2020 Costa Divaris/The Electronic Publishing Corp CC (referred to here as ‘the author’ and ‘the publisher’ respectively) Gauteng South Africa. This work is copyright under the Berne Convention. In terms of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 and subject to the user rights detailed above, no part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, presently known or that may be devised,

mailto:[email protected]



—6 —

electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. While any compilation and original features of legislation included in this work are copyright, s 12(8) of the Copyright Act provides, in part, that no copyright shall subsist in official texts of a legislative, administrative or legal nature.

Bsp Seminars® and Knowledge in Business® are registered trademarks.

Publisher The Electronic Publishing Corp CC (C Divaris). Bsp Seminars® is a division of The Electronic Publishing Corp CC. 12 Eshowe Street Paulshof Extension 10. Telephone 011 234 2434. Postnet Suite 72 Private Bag X87 Bryanston 2021. Business and Seminar Manager: Lesley Byrne. Contact Lesley Byrne: Mobile 082 854 2238; [email protected]. Contact Costa Divaris: Mobile 083 677 3333; [email protected].

ISBN 978–1–928444–42–8

BSP Seminars® Subscribe free to the Tax Shock, Horror newsletter—the law journal in drag. Subscribe to the Bsp Seminars® Subscription Service and attend all Bsp Seminars® seminars (and, at a low additional cost, bring a guest) and receive all of its new publications as these are published, receive the Tax Shock, Horror Database monthly, the Bsp Seminars® Subscription Service Database at intervals, the Tax Administration Weekly, and enjoy a half-hour of free advice each month.

For current details, click on the links on the cover of this publication. The images in this publication show views of the Bsp Seminars®

miniature sculpture garden.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Quick contents


—7 —

Quick contents

Terms and conditions 5 Quick contents 7 Stylistic conventions 9 How to use this work 11 Chronological list of cases 13 Cases, summaries 17 Cases, summaries and themes 27 Summaries 51 Cases, themes 59 The superior courts on wills 77

2019 ............................................................................................................... 79 2018 ............................................................................................................... 91 2017 ............................................................................................................. 105 2014 ............................................................................................................. 119 2013 ............................................................................................................. 125 2012 ............................................................................................................. 133 2011 ............................................................................................................. 139 2010 ............................................................................................................. 141 2009 ............................................................................................................. 171 2007 ............................................................................................................. 183 2006 ............................................................................................................. 201 2005 ............................................................................................................. 205 2004 ............................................................................................................. 215 2003 ............................................................................................................. 247 2000 ............................................................................................................. 253 1998 ............................................................................................................. 271 1993 ............................................................................................................. 277 1992 ............................................................................................................. 297 1988 ............................................................................................................. 319 1986 ............................................................................................................. 341 1985 ............................................................................................................. 345 1984 ............................................................................................................. 365 1983 ............................................................................................................. 373 1982 ............................................................................................................. 379 1981 ............................................................................................................. 391 1979 ............................................................................................................. 407 1978 ............................................................................................................. 431 1977 ............................................................................................................. 435 1976 ............................................................................................................. 441 1975 ............................................................................................................. 445 1974 ............................................................................................................. 461 1971 ............................................................................................................. 465 1968 ............................................................................................................. 473

Quick contents


—8 —

1966 .............................................................................................................. 481 1965 .............................................................................................................. 495 1963 .............................................................................................................. 501 1961 .............................................................................................................. 513 1960 .............................................................................................................. 515 1958 .............................................................................................................. 521 1957 .............................................................................................................. 525 1956 .............................................................................................................. 559 1955 .............................................................................................................. 571 1954 .............................................................................................................. 631 1953 .............................................................................................................. 647 1951 .............................................................................................................. 675 1950 .............................................................................................................. 699 1949 .............................................................................................................. 717 1948 .............................................................................................................. 733 1947 .............................................................................................................. 741

Stylistic conventions


—9 —

Stylistic conventions

The citations listed here in chronological order have been taken verbatim from published reports in South Africa Law Reports (SALR), while the spelling, punctuation and typographical presentation of the texts cited have been adapted to the conventions set out in the latest edition of the Bsp Stylebook (C Divaris, DS McAllister), a free publication. In addition, old citations of cases have been modernized. Obvious errors have been corrected, and are identified by being embraced in square parentheses.

In older judgments, before the advent of the convention of numbered paragraphs, paragraph-indentations have been dispensed with in the first line of the text of every citation and in every first line following an interruption of the text by indented or hanging material. The centered, bold headings in square parentheses indicating the ‘theme’ covered in the ensuing text of a judgment are not regarded as an interruption for this purpose.

Quotation marks are used to indicate a formal, verbatim quotation arising within the text of a citation. When a quotation appears separately from the text and indented, no quotation marks are used. A quotation within a quotation is indicated by a further indentation, again, without quotation marks. Paragraph-indentations have been dispensed with in the first line of every quotation and in every first line following an interruption of the quotation by indented or hanging material.

Quotations within the text of the citation are embraced by single quotation marks, and quotations within those quotations with double quotation marks, subject to recycling should the nesting continue.

The text of a citation or quotation expressed in Latin or Dutch is italicized, regardless of its original font, unless the particular passage concerned is a lengthy one. An attempt has been made to standardize the presentation of citations of learned works, regardless of the original italicization.


—10 —

How to use this work


—11 —

How to use this work

This is a full collection of judgments of the higher courts dealing with wills and succession. What is reproduced here is that part of each judgment supplying the ratio, as well as any other dicta not traversing the facts. What is silently omitted is (a) the introductory part of each judgment, usually devoted to a statement of the facts and circumstances of the particular case, and (usually) (b) that concluding part of each judgment dealing with the order and the award of costs. The intervening portion is reproduced in full, without interruption, save for the ‘theme’ headings shown in bold type, within square parentheses. When, exceedingly rarely, text is omitted, the ellipsis is shown, in the conventional fashion.

Each citation shows the formal SALR citation of the case, albeit modernized when necessary, the composition of the bench, the date judgment was handed down, the nature of (unanimous, dissenting, concurring) and, if relevant, the support for each judgment, and the ultimate order handed down (appeal allowed or dismissed). In each instance, the facts of the case and the finding are summarized, in two, italicized sentences, one for the facts, and the other for the finding. When essential for an understanding of a particular ratio, the relevant clauses of the will under consideration are supplied before the ratio.


—12 —

Chronological list of cases


—13 —


Click on an item to go to that page

2019 79 GOOSEN v WIEHAHN (761/2018) [2019] ZASCA 137 ............................. 79 GROBLER v MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT & OTHERS (645/2018) [2019] ZASCA 119 ........................................................................................ 85

2018 91 NAIDOO v DISCOVERY LIFE LIMITED & OTHERS (202/2017) ZASCA 88 ................................................................................................................... 91 STANDARD BANK v JULY (525/2017) [2018] ZASCA 85 ....................... 97

2017 105 LAUBSCHER NO v DUPLAN AND OTHERS 2017 (2) SA 264 (CC) ...... 105

2014 119 ERASMUS NO v ESTATE LATE BOOYSEN 2014 (4) SA 1 (SCA) ........ 119

2013 125 IN RE BOE TRUST LTD AND OTHERS NNO 2013 (3) SA 236 (SCA) .. 125 JAKINS V BAXTER (178/13) [2013] ZASCA 190 .................................... 129

2012 133 RAUBENHEIMER v RAUBENHEIMER AND OTHERS 2012 (5) SA 290 (SCA) ........................................................................................................... 133

2011 139 PIENAAR AND ANOTHER v MASTER OF THE FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN, AND OTHERS 2011 (6) SA 338 (SCA) ...... 139

2010 141 VAN DER MERWE v THE MASTER AND ANOTHER 2010 (6) SA 544 (SCA) ........................................................................................................... 141 CURATORS, EMMA SMITH EDUCATIONAL FUND v UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 518 (SCA) .................. 145 SMITH v PARSONS NO AND OTHERS 2010 (4) SA 378 (SCA) ............ 153 HENRIQUES v GILES NO 2010 (6) SA 51 (SCA) .................................... 155 MEINTJES V COETZER & OTHERS (089/09) [2010] ZASCA 32 .......... 161

2009 171 HASSAM v JACOBS NO AND OTHERS 2009 (5) SA 572 (CC) .............. 171

2007 183 GORY v KOLVER NO AND OTHERS (STARKE AND OTHERS INTERVENING) 2007 (4) SA 97 (CC) ........................................................ 183

2006 201 DE RESZKE v MARAS AND OTHERS 2006 (2) SA 277 (SCA).............. 201

2005 205 BHE AND OTHERS v MAGISTRATE, KHAYELITSHA, AND OTHERS (COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY AS AMICUS CURIAE); SHIBI v SITHOLE AND OTHERS; SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER v PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF



—14 —

SOUTH AFRICA AND ANOTHER 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC) ........................ 205 RHODE v STUBBS 2005 (5) SA 104 (SCA) .............................................. 209

2004 215 VAN WETTEN AND ANOTHER v BOSCH AND OTHERS 2004 (1) SA 348 (SCA) .................................................................................................... 215 DANIELS v CAMPBELL NO AND OTHERS 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) ........ 219

2003 247 BEKKER v NAUDE EN ANDERE 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA) ...................... 247

2000 253 MTHEMBU v LETSELA AND ANOTHER 2000 (3) SA 867 (SCA) ........ 253 JOWELL v BRAMWELL-JONES AND OTHERS 2000 (3) SA 274 (SCA) ...................................................................................................................... 261

1998 271 WEBB v DAVIS NO AND OTHERS 1998 (2) SA 975 (SCA) ................... 271

1993 277 HARPUR NO v GOVINDAMALL AND ANOTHER 1993 (4) SA 751 (A) ...................................................................................................................... 277

1992 297 HILDA HOLT WILL TRUST v COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE 1992 (4) SA 661 (A) ................................................................. 297 COHEN NO v ROETZ NO AND OTHERS 1992 (1) SA 629 (A) .............. 303 KOMMISSARIS VAN BINNELANDSE INKOMSTE v STEYN NO 1992 (1) SA 110 (A) .............................................................................................. 313

1988 319 HOROWITZ v BROCK AND OTHERS 1988 (2) SA 160 (A) ................... 319 DU PLESSIS NO v STRAUSS 1988 (2) SA 105 (A) .................................. 329

1986 341 KOHLBERG v BURNETT NO AND OTHERS 1986 (3) SA 12 (A) ......... 341

1985 345 HEYMANS v VAN TONDER 1985 (3) SA 864 (A) ................................... 345 CRONJE v KRUGER EN ’N ANDER NNO 1985 (2) SA 812 (A) ............. 353

1984 365 REIN NO V FLEISCHER NO AND OTHERS 1984 (4) SA 863 (A) ......... 365 BRAUN v BLANN AND BOTHA NNO AND ANOTHER 1984 (2) SA 850 (A) ................................................................................................................ 369

1983 373 DIEDERICHS v GOUWS EN ’n ANDER 1983 (3) SA 28 (A) ................... 373

1982 379 KINLOCH NO AND ANOTHER v KINLOCH 1982 (1) SA 679 (A) ........ 379

1981 391 FERREIRA NO v SMIT NO 1981 (3) SA 1264 (A) .................................... 391 SMIT v DU TOIT EN ANDERE 1981 (3) SA 1249 (A) ............................. 397

1979 407 DISON NO AND OTHERS v HOFFMANN AND OTHERS NNO 1979 (4) SA 1004 (A) ................................................................................................. 407

1978 431 WESSELS EN ANDERE v SINODALE KERKKANTOOR KOMMISSIE VAN DIE NEDERDUITSE GEREFORMEERDE KERK, OVS 1978 (3) SA 716 (A) ......................................................................................................... 431

1977 435



—15 —

RADLEY EN ’N ANDER v STOPFORTH EN ’N ANDER 1977 (2) SA 516 (A) ................................................................................................................ 435

1976 441 IN RE JENNETT NO 1976 (1) SA 580 (A) ................................................. 441

1975 445 MAPHAM v ROSS AND ANOTHER NNO 1975 (2) SA 412 (A) ............. 445 BOSWELL EN ANDERE v VAN TONDER 1975 (3) SA 29 (A) .............. 451

1974 461 SECRETARY FOR INLAND REVENUE v ESTATE ROADKNIGHT AND ANOTHER 1974 (1) SA 253 (A) ................................................................. 461

1971 465 LELLO AND OTHERS v DALES NO 1971 (2) SA 330 (A) ...................... 465

1968 473 LOOCK EN ’N ANDER v STEYN NO 1968 (1) SA 602 (A)..................... 473

1966 481 ESTATE ORPEN v ESTATE ATKINSON AND OTHERS 1966 (4) SA 589 (A) ................................................................................................................ 481 CONRADIE EN ANDERE v SMIT 1966 (3) SA 368 (A) .......................... 489

1965 495 SCHOEMAN v O’NEIL EN ANDERE 1965 (3) SA 359 (A) ..................... 495

1963 501 GLAZER v GLAZER NO 1963 (4) SA 694 (A) .......................................... 501 VAN RENSBURG v VAN RENSBURG EN ANDERE 1963 (1) SA 505 (A) ..................................................................................................................... 507 WOLMAN AND OTHERS v WOLMAN 1963 (2) SA 452 (A) ................. 511

1961 513 BODASING v CHRISTIE NO AND ANOTHER 1961 (3) SA 553 (A) ..... 513

1960 515 HARRIS v FISHER NO 1960 (4) SA 855 (A) .............................................. 515

1958 521 HENNING v ERASMUS EN ANDERE 1958 (2) SA 512 (A) .................... 521

1957 525 ABRAHAM-KRIEL KINDERHUIS v ADENDORFF NO AND OTHERS 1957 (3) SA 653 (A) ..................................................................................... 525 EX PARTE BURGER EN ANDERE 1957 (3) SA 644 (A) ........................ 529 SPIES NO v SMITH EN ANDERE 1957 (1) SA 539 (A) ........................... 535 O’DWYER v ESTATE MARKS AND OTHERS 1957 (1) SA 287 (A) ..... 543 GREEFF v ESTATE GREEFF 1957 (2) SA 269 (A) .................................. 549 PHIPSON AND OTHERS v JARDINE AND OTHERS 1957 (3) SA 268 (A) ..................................................................................................................... 553

1956 559 COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE v LUKIN’S ESTATE 1956 (1) SA 617 (A) .............................................................................................. 559 SCHAUMBERG v STARK NO 1956 (4) SA 462 (A)................................. 563 ESTATE SANUA v THE MASTER, HIGH COURT (SR) AND ANOTHER 1956 (1) SA 158 (A) ..................................................................................... 569

1955 571 HOLMES’ EXECUTOR AND OTHERS v RAWBONE AND OTHERS 1954 (3) SA 703 (A) ..................................................................................... 571 ESTATE WATKINS-PITCHFORD AND OTHERS v COMMISSIONER



—16 —

FOR INLAND REVENUE 1955 (2) SA 437 (A) ........................................ 585 GREENBERG AND OTHERS v ESTATE GREENBERG 1955 (3) SA 361 (A) ................................................................................................................ 605 COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE AND OTHERS v SIVE’S ESTATE 1955 (1) SA 249 (A) ..................................................................... 611

1954 631 ASSOCIATED MANGANESE MINES OF SA LTD v CLAASSENS 1954 (3) SA 768 (A) .............................................................................................. 631 EX PARTE OPPERMAN 1954 (1) SA 358 (A) .......................................... 637 EX PARTE MELLE AND OTHERS 1954 (2) SA 329 (A) ......................... 641

1953 647 EX PARTE SIMPSON 1953 (1) SA 565 (A) ............................................... 647 GLASS AND OTHERS v KER NO AND OTHERS 1953 (1) SA 550 (A) . 651 BYDAWELL v CHAPMAN NO AND OTHERS 1953 (3) SA 514 (A) ..... 659 HARTER v EPSTEIN 1953 (1) SA 287 (A) ................................................ 667

1951 675 EX PARTE ROSSOUW NO 1951 (3) SA 681 (A) ...................................... 675 MOSES v ABINADER 1951 (4) SA 537 (A) .............................................. 681 VAN ZYL AND OTHERS v VAN ZYL AND OTHERS 1951 (3) SA 288 (A) ...................................................................................................................... 695

1950 699 ARONSON v ESTATE HART AND OTHERS 2 1950 (1) SA 539 (A) ..... 699

1949 717 KETHEL v KETHEL’S ESTATE 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) .............................. 717 SMITH AND ANOTHER v ESTATE SMITH 1949 (1) SA 534 (A) .......... 727

1948 733 MOYCE v ESTATE TAYLOR 1948 (3) SA 822 (A) .................................. 733 KRIEL v KRIEL AND ANOTHER 1948 (3) SA 309 (A) ........................... 737

1947 741 CANNON AND OTHERS v NORRIS 1947 (4) SA 811 (A) ...................... 741

Cases, summaries


—17 —

Cases, summaries


2019 79 GOOSEN v WIEHAHN (761/2018) [2019] ZASCA 137 ............................. 79

Beneficiary exercised right under will to acquire properties at determined price. ‘Real source’ of the right is ‘disposition by the testator’, which was its fons et origo; consequently right was not pactum de contrahendo, and acquisition was ‘acquisition by succession’. 79

GROBLER v MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT & OTHERS (645/2018) [2019] ZASCA 119 ........................................................................................ 85

Deceased with will properly executed at time of first marriage, presented with draft will prepared by deceased’s financial adviser. Section 2(3) of Wills Act not applied, since no intention that final document was to be will. 85

2018 91 NAIDOO v DISCOVERY LIFE LIMITED & OTHERS (202/2017) ZASCA 88 ................................................................................................................... 91

Nomination of beneficiary under risk-only policy containing beneficiary clause (stipulatio alteri) changed by deceased. Such a policy cannot be an asset in the estate of the policyholder and of joint estate from marriage in community of property, and not an insurance policy under s 15(2)(c) of Matrimonial Property Act. 91

STANDARD BANK v JULY (525/2017) [2018] ZASCA 85 ....................... 97 Deceased executor sold estate assets unlawfully before his death. Under the Beningfield exception, beneficiary of deceased estate may claim assets from the person in possession. 97


Permanent life partners with reciprocal duties of support without solemnization under the Civil Union Act; one of them died intestate. Survivor held to be entitled to inherit. 105


Will created fiduciary and first and second fideicommissaries; first fideicommissary predeceased fiduciary. Property held to go to second fideicommissary. 119

2013 125 IN RE BOE TRUST LTD AND OTHERS NNO 2013 (3) SA 236 (SCA) .. 125

Will provided for charitable testamentary trust, with alternative beneficiaries should the primary appointment prove impossible. Upon failure of primary appointment, alternative appointment held to apply. 125

Cases, summaries


—18 —

JAKINS V BAXTER (178/13) [2013] ZASCA 190 .................................... 129 Antenuptial contract compensated wife for benefits forgone under previous marriage with benefits ‘arising’ from deceased’s membership of provident fund. In context of ANC, relevant clause was meant to make financial provision for the wife upon the death of the deceased, and life policy as a benefit falling within ambit of the clause. 129


Testator bequeathed a usufruct without identifying the remainderman; omitted to attach a list of bequests to the will. Will interpreted and held to be valid. 133


Testator’s second will did not revoke earlier will. Both wills read together, with later will revoking earlier one in instances of inconsistency. 139

2010 141 VAN DER MERWE v THE MASTER AND ANOTHER 2010 (6) SA 544 (SCA) ........................................................................................................... 141

Document bearing characteristics of will unsigned. Found to be a will, under the Wills Act. 141

CURATORS, EMMA SMITH EDUCATIONAL FUND v UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 518 (SCA) .................. 145

Charitable testamentary trust included racially restrictive provision. Relevant clause deleted under the Trust Property Control Act. 145

SMITH v PARSONS NO AND OTHERS 2010 (4) SA 378 (SCA) ............ 153 Suicide note. Accepted as will under the Wills Act. 153

HENRIQUES v GILES NO 2010 (6) SA 51 (SCA) ..................................... 155 Crossed wills. Rectification accepted into law but not when testator lacked testamentary capacity. 155

MEINTJES V COETZER & OTHERS (089/09) [2010] ZASCA 32 .......... 161 Farm fraudulently transferred and registered in the names of deceased’s children, who claimed she had either waived or abandoned (donated) her right to ownership. Neither claim proved, rectification of deeds approved. 161

2009 171 HASSAM v JACOBS NO AND OTHERS 2009 (5) SA 572 (CC) ............... 171

Widows in polygynous Muslim marriages excluded by s 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act. Deficiency rectified by a reading-in. 171


Surviving partner in permanent same-sex partnership under reciprocal duties of support did not inherit upon intestacy of deceased partner. Statute held to be unconstitutional, and rectifying words read-in. 183

2006 201

Cases, summaries


—19 —

DE RESZKE v MARAS AND OTHERS 2006 (2) SA 277 (SCA).............. 201 Whether a document constituted a will. Intention concurrent with its drafting that it be a will, as opposed to instructions to an attorney, not shown. 201

2005 205 BHE AND OTHERS v MAGISTRATE, KHAYELITSHA, AND OTHERS (COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY AS AMICUS CURIAE); SHIBI v SITHOLE AND OTHERS; SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER v PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ANOTHER 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC) ........................ 205

On the constitutional validity of s 23 of the Black Administration Act and of the principal of primogeniture under the customary law of succession. Orders made as to the interpretation of the relevant statutes. 205

RHODE v STUBBS 2005 (5) SA 104 (SCA) .............................................. 209 Joint will of spouses married in community of property. Held not to constitute a massing. 209

2004 215 VAN WETTEN AND ANOTHER v BOSCH AND OTHERS 2004 (1) SA 348 (SCA) .................................................................................................... 215

Document in sealed envelope addressed to deceased’s attorney handed over for safekeeping, together with other sealed documents, to deceased’s friend some years before his death, seemingly in circumstances indicating that he was contemplating suicide. Document held to be a will under s 2(3) of Wills Act 7 of 1953. 215

DANIELS v CAMPBELL NO AND OTHERS 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) ........ 219 Whether ‘spouse’ in the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act includes persons married according to Muslim rites. Held that these acts are to be interpreted as including a party to a monogamous Muslim marriage as a spouse. 219


Bank instructed by client to draft will; never signed by client. Will declared invalid, as not having been drafted by the deceased. 247

2000 253 MTHEMBU v LETSELA AND ANOTHER 2000 (3) SA 867 (SCA) ........ 253

Deceased married under customary with illegitimate daughter died intestate. Daughter held not to enjoy any rights under laws intestacy. 253

JOWELL v BRAMWELL-JONES AND OTHERS 2000 (3) SA 274 (SCA) ..................................................................................................................... 261

Wife bequeathed usufruct over shares in a holding company—in which she personally held, outright, a significant interest—with investment in listed shares; advised to sell shares and lend proceeds to trust to buy interest-bearing securities. Action for damages found to be premature, since any loss ascertainable only upon her death. 261


Bequest to beneficiary subject to bequest price payable in instalments, on condition of immediate acceptance and forfeiture in

Cases, summaries


—20 —

the event of noncompliance with terms; beneficiary died, leaving property to spouse. Property found to vest, subject to resolutive condition, and to be transmissible. 271

1993 277 HARPUR NO v GOVINDAMALL AND ANOTHER 1993 (4) SA 751 (A) ...................................................................................................................... 277

In one of its two pages, a will was merely initialled by the witnesses, rather than being signed. The will was held to be invalid under s 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. 277

1992 297 HILDA HOLT WILL TRUST v COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE 1992 (4) SA 661 (A) ................................................................. 297

Under testamentary trust, testatrix’s friend awarded monthly annuity and other benefits, with trust property to go to designated charities upon her death. Bequest to charities found to be unconditional, and vested in them at death. 297

COHEN NO v ROETZ NO AND OTHERS 1992 (1) SA 629 (A) .............. 303 Inter-generational fideicommissum created in will in favour of testator’s three children, with devolution to the eldest child of each child and then of their successors. Found to exclude adopted children, despite statutory accommodation of adopted children generally. 303

KOMMISSARIS VAN BINNELANDSE INKOMSTE v STEYN NO 1992 (1) SA 110 (A) .............................................................................................. 313

Liability of deceased to ex-wife under agreement incorporated in divorce order relevant to estate duty calculation. Liability found to be more than the tax authorities allowed but less than what was claimed as a deduction in the estate. 313

1988 319 HOROWITZ v BROCK AND OTHERS 1988 (2) SA 160 (A) ................... 319

Under massed estate, survivor enjoyed life interest, with devolution to a trust with daughters as income beneficiaries, and capital to go their lawful children. ‘Children’ found to include grandchildren with predeceased parents. 319

DU PLESSIS NO v STRAUSS 1988 (2) SA 105 (A) .................................. 329 The testator bequeathed a farm to his son by way of fideicommissum, subject to the condition that, should he die without lawful descendants, the farm would go to his sisters or their lawful descendants, by substitution; son died, leaving children. Children found to be fideicommissary beneficiaries. 329

1986 341 KOHLBERG v BURNETT NO AND OTHERS 1986 (3) SA 12 (A) ......... 341

Before executing his will, the testator created two trusts, in his will appointing them (via their trustees) as beneficiaries of the residue of his estate. Bequest held to be valid. 341

1985 345 HEYMANS v VAN TONDER 1985 (3) SA 864 (A) ................................... 345

Surviving spouse adiated under joint will providing that, should the survivor remarry, a sum be either paid to the son or security furnished. Choice of providing security found to subsist only for so long as son was a minor. 345

Cases, summaries


—21 —

CRONJE v KRUGER EN ’N ANDER NNO 1985 (2) SA 812 (A) ............. 353 Joint will bequeathed joint estate to survivor; fideicommissum over part in favour of testators’ son, including movables and livestock as found on a particular farm upon the survivor’s death; survivor had in her lifetime disposed of some of these movables. Son successfully obtained compensation for diminution in movables. 353

1984 365 REIN NO V FLEISCHER NO AND OTHERS 1984 (4) SA 863 (A) ......... 365

Bequest subject to forfeiture clause in the event of anticipation or encumbrance of interest or inheritance; beneficiary promised a portion of anticipated in heritance in consent paper. Action did not trigger forfeiture clause. 365

BRAUN v BLANN AND BOTHA NNO AND ANOTHER 1984 (2) SA 850 (A) ................................................................................................................ 369

Will created discretionary trust, empowering trustees to make distributions at their discretion among designated beneficiaries; termination clause included proviso purportedly affording them the power to create trusts at will. Bequest found to be valid; the proviso to be invalid, although with no effect upon the validity of the testamentary trust. 369

1983 373 DIEDERICHS v GOUWS EN ’n ANDER 1983 (3) SA 28 (A) .................. 373

Bequest to survivor in joint will, with special bequests out of ‘the estate as then found’ upon the death of the survivor. The survivor was precluded from disposing of the property. 373

1982 379 KINLOCH NO AND ANOTHER v KINLOCH 1982 (1) SA 679 (A) ........ 379

Usufruct in property enjoyed by testator’s wife, with conditional fideicommissum in favour of grandson, subject to a fideicommissary substitution, should grandson not dispose of property by transaction or by will; grandson died intestate, while married in community of property. Property fell into joint estate of late grandson and his wife. 379

1981 391 FERREIRA NO v SMIT NO 1981 (3) SA 1264 (A) .................................... 391

Grandson inherited property by way of fideicommissum, with limited power to nominate fideicommissarii by way of testamentary disposition; purported in his will so to dispose of the property, but subject to terms contrary to his testamentary power. No honest intention to exercise his power, and in fact had not so exercised it. 391

SMIT v DU TOIT EN ANDERE 1981 (3) SA 1249 (A) ............................. 397 Alienation of property bequeathed by way of fideicommissum prohibited except to legitimate children. Sale and bequest by beneficiary to her son upheld. 397

1979 407 DISON NO AND OTHERS v HOFFMANN AND OTHERS NNO 1979 (4) SA 1004 (A) ................................................................................................. 407

The focus of a poorly drafted will was its clause 6, which failed to make it clear whether vesting in the beneficiaries depended upon their surviving to a later date, or what was to be done with surplus

Cases, summaries


—22 —

income. Vesting found to take place at second date, and surplus income accrued to the capital of the residue. 407

1978 431 WESSELS EN ANDERE v SINODALE KERKKANTOOR KOMMISSIE VAN DIE NEDERDUITSE GEREFORMEERDE KERK, OVS 1978 (3) SA 716 (A) ......................................................................................................... 431

Control of farming property left to Commission, with user rights of two types reserved for most needy of identified beneficiaries, otherwise to be let on the open market. None of applicants qualified for access to these user rights, and none of them were prejudiced by the letting of the property on the open market. 431

1977 435 RADLEY EN ’N ANDER v STOPFORTH EN ’N ANDER 1977 (2) SA 516 (A) ................................................................................................................ 435

Commissioner of oaths failed to append his certificate to the will marked by testator. Will held to be invalid. 435

1976 441 IN RE JENNETT NO 1976 (1) SA 580 (A) ................................................. 441

Testator signed will with mark in presence of commissioner of oaths, who appended certificate required by s 2(1)(a)(v) of Act 7 of 1953. Certificate complied, even though commissioner did not use the ipsissima verba of the provision. 441

1975 445 MAPHAM v ROSS AND ANOTHER NNO 1975 (2) SA 412 (A) ............. 445

Bequest to eldest son, and from him to ‘the eldest heir male’ of such son. Interpreted as identifying the eldest son’s heirs, from eldest son to eldest son. 445

BOSWELL EN ANDERE v VAN TONDER 1975 (3) SA 29 (A) .............. 451 Bequest to testators’ daughter; to go to her lawful issue; failing them, to other children or their lawful issue. Daughter’s adopted child excluded from qualification, despite s 74(2) of Act 33 of 1960. 451

1974 461 SECRETARY FOR INLAND REVENUE v ESTATE ROADKNIGHT AND ANOTHER 1974 (1) SA 253 (A) ................................................................. 461

Will gave beneficiary option to acquire immovable property at fixed price. Held to be acquisition by testamentary succession for transfer duty purposes. 461

1971 465 LELLO AND OTHERS v DALES NO 1971 (2) SA 330 (A) ...................... 465

Bequest to brother or lawful issue, if any; died without issue. Devolution held to be to other beneficiaries. 465

1968 473 LOOCK EN ’N ANDER v STEYN NO 1968 (1) SA 602 (A) ..................... 473

Bequest of farms to children; subsequent heirs required to bear names of testators. Not invalid for uncertainty; constituted a fideicommissum. 473

1966 481 ESTATE ORPEN v ESTATE ATKINSON AND OTHERS 1966 (4) SA 589 (A) ................................................................................................................ 481

Daughter as usufructuary with power to appoint successors in full

Cases, summaries


—23 —

title, exercising power in her will, but predeceasing the testator. Her testamentary disposition invalid. 481

CONRADIE EN ANDERE v SMIT 1966 (3) SA 368 (A) .......................... 489 Daughter left portion of farm, with improvements. Intended portion identified as homestead on farm at the time of execution of the will; no interference with costs order de bonis propriis against executor. 489

1965 495 SCHOEMAN v O’NEIL EN ANDERE 1965 (3) SA 359 (A) ..................... 495

Will created perpetual fideicommissum in favour of eldest son in each generation; first eldest son died without issue. Substitution to be applied in each generation, whenever an eldest son leaves no male descendants. 495

1963 501 GLAZER v GLAZER NO 1963 (4) SA 694 (A) .......................................... 501

Claim by widow for maintenance from estate of late husband. Condonation for late noting of appeal refused, prospects of success being too slender. 501

VAN RENSBURG v VAN RENSBURG EN ANDERE 1963 (1) SA 505 (A) ..................................................................................................................... 507

Mutual will of husband and wife written out by husband but not confirmed by wife. Surviving husband prohibited from benefiting under will. 507

WOLMAN AND OTHERS v WOLMAN 1963 (2) SA 452 (A) ................. 511 Guardians represented minors in court, despite possible conflict of interest. Decision set aside and case remitted to trial court, for appointment of `. 511

1961 513 BODASING v CHRISTIE NO AND ANOTHER 1961 (3) SA 553 (A) ..... 513

Farm bequeathed to each of two sons, each subject to a right of pre-emption in favour of his brother. Could not prevent sale by public auction upon insolvency of one of the brothers. 513

1960 515 HARRIS v FISHER NO 1960 (4) SA 855 (A) .............................................. 515

Widow a vested income beneficiary of estate property, bequeathed to a trust, claimed as income a dividend paid to extinguish the deceased’s indebtedness to the declaring dividend. Dividend held not to be income of the estate. 515

1958 521 HENNING v ERASMUS EN ANDERE 1958 (2) SA 512 (A) .................... 521

Bequest to married daughter subject to a usufruct to her surviving spouse; subsequently divorced. On her death, usufruct to ex-husband upheld. 521

1957 525 ABRAHAM-KRIEL KINDERHUIS v ADENDORFF NO AND OTHERS 1957 (3) SA 653 (A) ..................................................................................... 525

Joint will dependent upon survivor’s making another will; survivor dies seven moths later, without making a will. Joint will inapplicable; survivor died intestate. 525

EX PARTE BURGER EN ANDERE 1957 (3) SA 644 (A) ........................ 529

Cases, summaries


—24 —

Bequest to grandchildren, subject to a usufruct in favour of the testator’s child, who, being beyond child-bearing age, attempted to vest the property in her children, subject to a usufruct in her favour. Will created a fideicommissum in favour of grandchildren and great-grandchildren; grandchildren could receive transfer, subject to the fideicommissum. 529

SPIES NO v SMITH EN ANDERE 1957 (1) SA 539 (A) ........................... 535 Validity of will upheld despite pressure brought to bear upon testator. 535

O’DWYER v ESTATE MARKS AND OTHERS 1957 (1) SA 287 (A) ..... 543 Under will, marriage outside of the Jewish faith by children entailed forfeiture. Under construction of will and codicil, ‘children’ found not to include ‘grandchildren’. 543

GREEFF v ESTATE GREEFF 1957 (2) SA 269 (A) ................................... 549 Bequest to daughters subject to fideicommissum in favour of testator’s descendants, subject to reversion to all children should a daughter die without issue. Held to constitute fiduciary substitution, in favour of testator’s surviving son. 549

PHIPSON AND OTHERS v JARDINE AND OTHERS 1957 (3) SA 268 (A) ...................................................................................................................... 553

Bequest to son subject to a prohibition against alienation outside of a class. Class too poorly identified for a fideicommissum to have been created. 553

1956 559 COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE v LUKIN’S ESTATE 1956 (1) SA 617 (A) .............................................................................................. 559

Surviving spouse left usufruct over residue of estate, with power of appointment, subject to gift over. Dominium found not to vest in wife, who enjoyed a usufructuary interest, ceasing on her death. 559

SCHAUMBERG v STARK NO 1956 (4) SA 462 (A) ................................. 563 Estate bequeathed to wife, to be administered by a trustee, with all income to go to the wife, and ultimate devolution to the children, subject to a set-aside for one of the children, who predeceased his mother. No vesting in trustee; wife enjoyed fiduciary interest; owned but could not access the set-aside, which did not vest in deceased son. 563

ESTATE SANUA v THE MASTER, HIGH COURT (SR) AND ANOTHER 1956 (1) SA 158 (A) ..................................................................................... 569

Endorsement of will required by statute to maintain its validity upon marriage of testator. Will executed before marriage but clearly contemplating marriage found to comply. 569

1955 571 HOLMES’ EXECUTOR AND OTHERS v RAWBONE AND OTHERS 1954 (3) SA 703 (A) ..................................................................................... 571

First-dying spouse provided for children, subject to a time clause, as well as for a massing of the joint estate, with the surviving spouse adiating. The massing applied to the whole estate. 571

ESTATE WATKINS-PITCHFORD AND OTHERS v COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE 1955 (2) SA 437 (A) ........................................ 585

A will and a codicil conferred ownership upon the testator’s children,

Cases, summaries


—25 —

with the income to be paid to them during their lifetimes, subject to disposition by them by will or, failing a will, to their next of kin. Their interests found to be fideicommissa, subject to death duties under s 3(4)(b) of the Death Duties Act. 585

GREENBERG AND OTHERS v ESTATE GREENBERG 1955 (3) SA 361 (A) ................................................................................................................ 605

The testator’s widow enjoyed a usufructuary interest in a property, with the estate being held in trust, for the benefit of the sons of the marriage, who predeceased their mother. Despite the trust, ownership of the estate property vested in the sons, and, failing them, their children. 605

COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE AND OTHERS v SIVE’S ESTATE 1955 (1) SA 249 (A) ..................................................................... 611

Will vested property in trustees. Deceased beneficiary found to have no vested beneficial interest in that property. 611

1954 631 ASSOCIATED MANGANESE MINES OF SA LTD v CLAASSENS 1954 (3) SA 768 (A) .............................................................................................. 631

Farm bequeathed to son, with benefits under mining contract to be divided equally among all the children, subject to usufruct in favour of surviving spouse, who renounced it, in favour of the son. Rights under contract did not vest in son, who could not cancel it; in any event, the court was bound to have regard to the interests of the other beneficiaries. 631

EX PARTE OPPERMAN 1954 (1) SA 358 (A) .......................................... 637 Farm left to testator’s son to go to his sisters should he die without children. His inheritance constituted a fideicommissum, which could not be expunged. 637

EX PARTE MELLE AND OTHERS 1954 (2) SA 329 (A) ......................... 641 Will appointed children as sole heirs, subject to a time-clog on some of the assets. Children found to enjoy vested interests ab initio. 641

1953 647 EX PARTE SIMPSON 1953 (1) SA 565 (A) ............................................... 647

Fideicommissum subject to marriage and lawful issue. Lapsed not upon marriage but death, leaving issue. 647

GLASS AND OTHERS v KER NO AND OTHERS 1953 (1) SA 550 (A). 651 Shares to be offered to beneficiaries at face value. Acceptance of option a patrimonial event. 651

BYDAWELL v CHAPMAN NO AND OTHERS 1953 (3) SA 514 (A) ..... 659 Family agreement purported to dispose of an estate, contrary to the provisions of the will. Devolution of estate unaffected. 659

HARTER v EPSTEIN 1953 (1) SA 287 (A) ................................................ 667 Balance of estate left to discretion of executors. Interpretation of will showed that identified beneficiary not entitled to the residue, which was therefore required to be dealt with under the rules of intestacy. 667

1951 675 EX PARTE ROSSOUW NO 1951 (3) SA 681 (A) ...................................... 675

Testator appointed daughter and her children, born and still to be born, as sole heirs, with liquidation and distribution to be

Cases, summaries


—26 —

accomplished within three month. Daughter held to be sole heiress. 675

MOSES v ABINADER 1951 (4) SA 537 (A) .............................................. 681 Codicil amended revoked will. Onus not discharged of proving revival of revoked will. 681

VAN ZYL AND OTHERS v VAN ZYL AND OTHERS 1951 (3) SA 288 (A) ...................................................................................................................... 695

Usufruct in favour of surviving spouse, with reversion should legatee of corpus die without issue. Constituted fideicommissum in favour of legatee. 695

1950 699 ARONSON v ESTATE HART AND OTHERS 2 1950 (1) SA 539 (A) ..... 699

Will with religion-based, conditional disqualification. Not void for uncertainty, and not a nude prohibition. 699

1949 717 KETHEL v KETHEL’S ESTATE 1949 (3) SA 598 (A) .............................. 717

Action to set aside will. Since beneficiaries not joined, no order made. 717

SMITH AND ANOTHER v ESTATE SMITH 1949 (1) SA 534 (A) .......... 727 Bequests taking effect on surviving spouse’s death. No vesting at date of testator’s death. 727

1948 733 MOYCE v ESTATE TAYLOR 1948 (3) SA 822 (A) .................................. 733

Bequest of rent-free tenancy to existing tenant. Bequest a continuance of tenure, rent free. 733

KRIEL v KRIEL AND ANOTHER 1948 (3) SA 309 (A) ........................... 737 Conditional bequest price. Triggers marriage of legatee and vacation of premises by those with user rights. 737

1947 741 CANNON AND OTHERS v NORRIS 1947 (4) SA 811 (A) ...................... 741

Usufruct over farm in testamentary trust left to eldest son of each usufructuary. Eldest grandson of usufructuary who died without sons excluded. 741

Cases, summaries and themes


—27 —



2019 79 GOOSEN v WIEHAHN (761/2018) [2019] ZASCA 137 ............................. 79

Beneficiary exercised right under will to acquire properties at determined price. ‘Real source’ of the right is ‘disposition by the testator’, which was its fons et origo; consequently right was not pactum de contrahendo, and acquisition was ‘acquisition by succession’. 79

[Nothing ‘like a will for fomenting family dissension’] ................. 79 [Exercise of the option] .................................................................. 80 [The litigation] ................................................................................ 81 [The golden rule of interpreting a will] .......................................... 83 [Personal, not real rights] ................................................................ 83 [Right arose from testamentary disposition, not pactum de contrahendo] ................................................................................... 84

GROBLER v MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT & OTHERS (645/2018) [2019] ZASCA 119 ........................................................................................ 85

Deceased with will properly executed at time of first marriage, presented with draft will prepared by deceased’s financial adviser. Section 2(3) of Wills Act not applied, since no intention that final document was to be will. 85

[The facts] ....................................................................................... 85 [The court a quo] ............................................................................ 87 [Section2(3) of the Wills Act] ........................................................ 87 [Outcome] ....................................................................................... 89

2018 91 NAIDOO v DISCOVERY LIFE LIMITED & OTHERS (202/2017) ZASCA 88 ................................................................................................................... 91

Nomination of beneficiary under risk-only policy containing beneficiary clause (stipulatio alteri) changed by deceased. Such a policy cannot be an asset in the estate of the policyholder and of joint estate from marriage in community of property, and not an insurance policy under s 15(2)(c) of Matrimonial Property Act. 91

[Is policy asset, nomination an alienation?].................................... 91 [The facts—policy was risk-only] .................................................. 91 [The wife’s argument] .................................................................... 92 [Was policy an asset? (stipulatio alteri)] ........................................ 92 [Was nomination an alienation under Matrimonial Property Act?] 93 [Ndaba distinguished] ..................................................................... 96 [Nomination under policy not transfer of asset in estate] ............... 96

STANDARD BANK v JULY (525/2017) [2018] ZASCA 85 ....................... 97 Deceased executor sold estate assets unlawfully before his death.



—28 —

Under the Beningfield exception, beneficiary of deceased estate may claim assets from the person in possession. 97

[Did respondents, not being executors, have locus standi?] ........... 97 [Words and phrases: the Beningfield exception] ............................ 97 [The facts] ....................................................................................... 97 [Application of the Beningfield exception] ................................... 100 [Need for executor] ....................................................................... 103 [Contingent beneficiaries have locus standi] ................................ 103


Permanent life partners with reciprocal duties of support without solemnization under the Civil Union Act; one of them died intestate. Survivor held to be entitled to inherit. 105

[Aspects determinative of status as intestate successor] ............... 105 [Gory as an interim measure] ....................................................... 105 [Gory and the Civil Union Act] .................................................... 107 [Intestate Succession Act] ............................................................ 110 [Section 1(1) as amended by Gory] .............................................. 110 [Interpretative approach] .............................................................. 110 [Has Civil Union Act amended the Intestate Succession Act?] .... 111 [Volks case] ................................................................................... 113 [Conclusion] ................................................................................. 116 [Conclusion] ................................................................................. 117


Will created fiduciary and first and second fideicommissaries; first fideicommissary predeceased fiduciary. Property held to go to second fideicommissary. 119

[Difference between two wills] .................................................... 119 [Both wills provided for property to pass to children and from them to grandchildren]........................................................................... 119 [High Court’s approach] ............................................................... 120 [Immovable Property (Removal or Modification of Restrictions) Act] ............................................................................................... 121 [Words and phrases: fideicommissum multiplex] ......................... 121 [The per stirpes presumption] ...................................................... 122 [The presumption against disinherison]........................................ 122 [Intention of testators] .................................................................. 123

2013 125 IN RE BOE TRUST LTD AND OTHERS NNO 2013 (3) SA 236 (SCA) .. 125

Will provided for charitable testamentary trust, with alternative beneficiaries should the primary appointment prove impossible. Upon failure of primary appointment, alternative appointment held to apply. 125

[Application of Emma Smith] ....................................................... 125 [Freedom of testation] .................................................................. 126 [Testator’s wishes] ........................................................................ 127 [Words and phrases: ‘impossible’] ............................................... 127

JAKINS V BAXTER (178/13) [2013] ZASCA 190 .................................... 129 Antenuptial contract compensated wife for benefits forgone under



—29 —

previous marriage with benefits ‘arising’ from deceased’s membership of provident fund. In context of ANC, relevant clause was meant to make financial provision for the wife upon the death of the deceased, and life policy as a benefit falling within ambit of the clause. 129

[Disputed clause] .......................................................................... 129 [Did insurance proceeds accrue to widow or estate?] ................... 129 [Disputed clause in ANC] .............................................................. 129 [Words and phrases: ‘arising’]...................................................... 131 [Outcome] ..................................................................................... 131


Testator bequeathed a usufruct without identifying the remainderman; omitted to attach a list of bequests to the will. Will interpreted and held to be valid. 133

[Untrained advisers—a never-ending source of amazement] ....... 133 [Clauses 2 and 3 of the will] ......................................................... 133 [Intended to be a will?] ................................................................. 134 [Lack of specific bequests: rendered will void?] .......................... 135 [Usufruct over home] .................................................................... 135 [Will created fideicommissum] ..................................................... 136 [Interpreting a will] ....................................................................... 137 [Conclusions] ................................................................................ 138


Testator’s second will did not revoke earlier will. Both wills read together, with later will revoking earlier one in instances of inconsistency. 139

[More than one will] ..................................................................... 139 [Golden rule of interpretation of wills] ......................................... 140 [Earlier will contained important provisions] ............................... 140

2010 141 VAN DER MERWE v THE MASTER AND ANOTHER 2010 (6) SA 544 (SCA) ........................................................................................................... 141

Document bearing characteristics of will unsigned. Found to be a will, under the Wills Act. 141

[Section 2(1) of the Wills Act] ..................................................... 141 [Testing the document against the jurisdictional requirements of s 2(3)] ............................................................................................ 143

CURATORS, EMMA SMITH EDUCATIONAL FUND v UNIVERSITY OF KWAZULU-NATAL AND OTHERS 2010 (6) SA 518 (SCA) .................. 145

Charitable testamentary trust included racially restrictive provision. Relevant clause deleted under the Trust Property Control Act. 145

[Section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act] ............................ 145 [History of administration of fund] ............................................... 145 [Authority to amend trust deed] .................................................... 147 [Equality] ...................................................................................... 147 [Racially discriminatory testamentary dispositions] ..................... 148



—30 —

[Order] .......................................................................................... 151 SMITH v PARSONS NO AND OTHERS 2010 (4) SA 378 (SCA) ............ 153

Suicide note. Accepted as will under the Wills Act. 153 [Issues] .......................................................................................... 153 [Intention of deceased] ................................................................. 153 [Not donatio mortis causa] ........................................................... 154 [Intended to be will] ..................................................................... 154

HENRIQUES v GILES NO 2010 (6) SA 51 (SCA) ..................................... 155 Crossed wills. Rectification accepted into law but not when testator lacked testamentary capacity. 155

[Rectification of wills] .................................................................. 155 [Procedural issues] ........................................................................ 158 [Testamentary capacity] ............................................................... 159

MEINTJES V COETZER & OTHERS (089/09) [2010] ZASCA 32 .......... 161 Farm fraudulently transferred and registered in the names of deceased’s children, who claimed she had either waived or abandoned (donated) her right to ownership. Neither claim proved, rectification of deeds approved. 161

[Waiver or abandonment of property] .......................................... 161 [Background facts] ....................................................................... 161 [Defendant’s position and counterclaim] ...................................... 162 [Plaintiff’s claim (rei vindicatio), abstract theory of ownership] . 162 [How real rights are acquired, rectification] ................................. 163 [Will takes effect upon death]....................................................... 164 [Abandonment alleged] ................................................................ 164 [Prescription argument abandoned] .............................................. 165 [Rei vindicatio claim ignored] ...................................................... 165 [Knysna Hotel distinguished] ....................................................... 165 [Contrary to public policy and inimical to constitutional values] 165 [Waiver or abandonment not proved (donation)] ......................... 166 [Conclusion] ................................................................................. 166 [Abstract theory of transfer] ......................................................... 167 [Waiver and requirements for and consequences of waiver (donation)] .................................................................................... 168 [Conclusion] ................................................................................. 170

2009 171 HASSAM v JACOBS NO AND OTHERS 2009 (5) SA 572 (CC) ............... 171

Widows in polygynous Muslim marriages excluded by s 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act. Deficiency rectified by a reading-in. 171

[Issues] .......................................................................................... 171 [Equality jurisprudence] ............................................................... 171 [Approach to legislative interpretation] ........................................ 173 [Is Constitution violated?] ............................................................ 174 [Words and phrases: ‘spouse’] ..................................................... 178 [Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act] .............................. 178 [Remedy] ...................................................................................... 180


Surviving partner in permanent same-sex partnership under



—31 —

reciprocal duties of support did not inherit upon intestacy of deceased partner. Statute held to be unconstitutional, and rectifying words read-in. 183

[Unconstitutionality of s 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act] .... 183 [Remedy] ...................................................................................... 183 [Reading-in] .................................................................................. 184 [Retrospectivity] ........................................................................... 187 [Appeals to the Constitutional Court] ........................................... 192 [Order] .......................................................................................... 198

2006 201 DE RESZKE v MARAS AND OTHERS 2006 (2) SA 277 (SCA).............. 201

Whether a document constituted a will. Intention concurrent with its drafting that it be a will, as opposed to instructions to an attorney, not shown. 201

[When intention for purposes of s 2(3) exist] ............................... 201 [Was document intended to be will?] ........................................... 201 [Requisite intention lacking]......................................................... 202

2005 205 BHE AND OTHERS v MAGISTRATE, KHAYELITSHA, AND OTHERS (COMMISSION FOR GENDER EQUALITY AS AMICUS CURIAE); SHIBI v SITHOLE AND OTHERS; SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ANOTHER v PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AND ANOTHER 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC) ........................ 205

On the constitutional validity of s 23 of the Black Administration Act and of the principal of primogeniture under the customary law of succession. Orders made as to the interpretation of the relevant statutes. 205

[Effect of the judgment]................................................................ 205 RHODE v STUBBS 2005 (5) SA 104 (SCA) .............................................. 209

Joint will of spouses married in community of property. Held not to constitute a massing. 209

[Nature and requirements and effects of massing] ....................... 209 [Survivor enjoyed usufruct over property] ................................... 209 [Adiation does not of itself achieve a massing] ............................ 210 [Massing of itself has no consequences] ...................................... 210 [Joint wills often ambiguous] ....................................................... 210 [Presumption against massing in marriages of community] ......... 210 [Terms of the joint will] ................................................................ 211 [Has to be read as two wills]......................................................... 213

2004 215 VAN WETTEN AND ANOTHER v BOSCH AND OTHERS 2004 (1) SA 348 (SCA) .................................................................................................... 215

Document in sealed envelope addressed to deceased’s attorney handed over for safekeeping, together with other sealed documents, to deceased’s friend some years before his death, seemingly in circumstances indicating that he was contemplating suicide. Document held to be a will under s 2(3) of Wills Act 7 of 1953. 215

[Deceased’s intention] .................................................................. 215 [Document was will] .................................................................... 218

DANIELS v CAMPBELL NO AND OTHERS 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) ........ 219



—32 —

Whether ‘spouse’ in the Intestate Succession Act and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act includes persons married according to Muslim rites. Held that these acts are to be interpreted as including a party to a monogamous Muslim marriage as a spouse. 219

[Words and phrases: ‘spouse’] ..................................................... 219 [Legislative interpretation] ........................................................... 226 [Case law and ‘spouse’] ................................................................ 231 [Recognition of Muslim marriages].............................................. 234 [Principles of interpretation] ......................................................... 237 [Words and phrases: ‘spouse’] ..................................................... 238 [The doctrine of stare decicis] ...................................................... 240 [This case distinguishable?] .......................................................... 241 [Equality] ...................................................................................... 243 [Appropriate relief] ....................................................................... 245


Bank instructed by client to draft will; never signed by client. Will declared invalid, as not having been drafted by the deceased. 247

[The facts] ..................................................................................... 247 [Words and phrases: ‘opstel’ v ‘laat opstel’] ................................ 247 [Sections 2A and 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953] ....................... 248 [No escaping literal meaning of s 2(3)] ........................................ 250

2000 253 MTHEMBU v LETSELA AND ANOTHER 2000 (3) SA 867 (SCA) ........ 253

Deceased married under customary with illegitimate daughter died intestate. Daughter held not to enjoy any rights under laws intestacy. 253

[Regulation 2(e) of GN R 200 GG 10601 of 6 February 1987] ...... 253 [Regulation not ultra vires] .......................................................... 254 [Regulation not repealed] ............................................................. 255 [Development of rule better left to legislature] ............................ 258 [Regulation not contrary to public policy] .................................... 259 [Zondi v President of the Republic of South Africa] ..................... 259 [A caveat] ..................................................................................... 259

JOWELL v BRAMWELL-JONES AND OTHERS 2000 (3) SA 274 (SCA) ...................................................................................................................... 261

Wife bequeathed usufruct over shares in a holding company—in which she personally held, outright, a significant interest—with investment in listed shares; advised to sell shares and lend proceeds to trust to buy interest-bearing securities. Action for damages found to be premature, since any loss ascertainable only upon her death. 261

[Clause 3 of the will] .................................................................... 261 [The scheme] ................................................................................ 261 [Listed shares were not trust property and so could be alienated] 263 [Trustee vested with shares in holding company still required to exercise voting rights as fiduciary] ............................................... 264 [Conflict of interest] ..................................................................... 264 [Deregistration of holding company breach of trust].................... 264 [Establishing liability] .................................................................. 265 [Damages calculated with reference to future date] ..................... 266



—33 —

[Delictual claims for prospective loss] ......................................... 266 [Loss, if any, will only be known on future date] ......................... 269


Bequest to beneficiary subject to bequest price payable in instalments, on condition of immediate acceptance and forfeiture in the event of noncompliance with terms; beneficiary died, leaving property to spouse. Property found to vest, subject to resolutive condition, and to be transmissible. 271

[Clauses 2 and 3 of the will] ......................................................... 271 [Did beneficiary acquire vested right?] ........................................ 272 [Vesting upon death] .................................................................... 272 [Suspensive or resolutive condition?] ........................................... 272 [Testator’s intention v general scheme of will and circumstances] ...................................................................................................... 273 [Dies venit cannot precede dies cedit] .......................................... 273 [Presumptions come into play] ..................................................... 274 [Suspensive v resolutive conditions] ............................................ 274 [Rights transmissible?] ................................................................. 275

1993 277 HARPUR NO v GOVINDAMALL AND ANOTHER 1993 (4) SA 751 (A) ..................................................................................................................... 277

In one of its two pages, a will was merely initialled by the witnesses, rather than being signed. The will was held to be invalid under s 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. 277

[Section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act, 1953] ....................................... 277 [Is initialling by a witness is a signing under s 2(1)(a)(iii) and (iv)?] ...................................................................................................... 278 [Words and phrases: ‘signature’] .................................................. 278 [Words and phrases: ‘sign’, ‘signature’, ‘mark’] .......................... 279 [Why signatures of witnesses?] .................................................... 283 [Words and phrases: ‘mark’] ........................................................ 283 [Signatures and SA case law] ........................................................ 285 [Initials are not marks] .................................................................. 288 [Writings that are not marks or signatures in ordinary sense are not signatures] ..................................................................................... 288 [Intention of testator defeated] ...................................................... 288 [Cases supporting or apposing initials as signatures] ................... 289 [Pre-Union legislation and decisions] ........................................... 290 [The Melville/Dempers/court a quo argument] ............................ 292 [Words and phrases: ‘sign’] .......................................................... 294

1992 297 HILDA HOLT WILL TRUST v COMMISSIONER FOR INLAND REVENUE 1992 (4) SA 661 (A) ................................................................. 297

Under testamentary trust, testatrix’s friend awarded monthly annuity and other benefits, with trust property to go to designated charities upon her death. Bequest to charities found to be unconditional, and vested in them at death. 297

[Surplus income vested in person in whom trust capital vested] .. 297 [Was bequest to charities contingent or certain?] ......................... 297



—34 —

[Nature of interest of beneficiary in continuance] ........................ 297 [Not a vested interest, therefore not a fiduciary interest] ............. 298 [Interest of beneficiaries on termination] ..................................... 299 [Bequest was certain, although not in amount] ............................ 300 [When fideicommissary is charity, survivorship is not an issue] . 300

COHEN NO v ROETZ NO AND OTHERS 1992 (1) SA 629 (A) .............. 303 Inter-generational fideicommissum created in will in favour of testator’s three children, with devolution to the eldest child of each child and then of their successors. Found to exclude adopted children, despite statutory accommodation of adopted children generally. 303

[Conditions (iii) and (iv) of the will] ............................................ 303 [Words and phrases: ‘eldest child’] .............................................. 303 [Taking effect of will] ................................................................... 303 [Section 71(2) of the Children’s Act 31 of 1937] ......................... 304 [Section 20(2) of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983] ........................ 304 [Golden rule of interpretation] ...................................................... 304 [Strong indications pointing to confinement to blood relations] .. 305 [Conditions (iii) and (iv) compliment each other] ........................ 306 [Words and phrases: ‘eldest child’] .............................................. 306 [Effect of 1937 Act] ...................................................................... 307 [Effect of 1983 Act] ...................................................................... 307 [Application to will of new legislation] ........................................ 309 [Effect of 1983 Act] ...................................................................... 309 [Boswell en Andere v Van Tonder] ............................................... 309 [Legal fiction gives way to contrary intention expressed in will] 312

KOMMISSARIS VAN BINNELANDSE INKOMSTE v STEYN NO 1992 (1) SA 110 (A) .............................................................................................. 313

Liability of deceased to ex-wife under agreement incorporated in divorce order relevant to estate duty calculation. Liability found to be more than the tax authorities allowed but less than what was claimed as a deduction in the estate. 313

[Obligation to meet ex-wife’s medical costs a liability of deceased’s estate] ............................................................................................ 313 [Adjustment for increased future medical costs] .......................... 313 [Obligation to pay monthly maintenance] .................................... 314 [Inflationary adjustment] .............................................................. 314 [User right over fixed property] .................................................... 315 [Establishing deceased’s debt for estate duty purposes] ............... 316 [Estate duty capitalized values inapplicable] ................................ 316 [Treatment of annuities] ............................................................... 316 [Summary] .................................................................................... 317

1988 319 HOROWITZ v BROCK AND OTHERS 1988 (2) SA 160 (A) ................... 319

Under massed estate, survivor enjoyed life interest, with devolution to a trust with daughters as income beneficiaries, and capital to go their lawful children. ‘Children’ found to include grandchildren with predeceased parents. 319

[Clause 7 and provisos 3 and 6 of the will] .................................. 319 [Words and phrases: ‘lawful children’] ........................................ 320 [The Galliers and Others v Rycrofti rule] ..................................... 323



—35 —

[Words and phrases: ‘children’ means descendants in the first degree] .......................................................................................... 323 [Modification of the rule in Galliers v Rycroft] ............................ 324 [The rule in Galliers v Rycroft not obiter] .................................... 324 [Apply Galliers v Rycroft unless there are indicia to the contrary] ...................................................................................................... 325 [The indicia] ................................................................................. 325 [Words and phrases: ‘issue’] ........................................................ 325 [Words and phrases: ‘remoter descendants’] ................................ 326 [Equal treatment] .......................................................................... 327 [Galliers v Rycroft presumption rebutted] .................................... 327

DU PLESSIS NO v STRAUSS 1988 (2) SA 105 (A) .................................. 329 The testator bequeathed a farm to his son by way of fideicommissum, subject to the condition that, should he die without lawful descendants, the farm would go to his sisters or their lawful descendants, by substitution; son died, leaving children. Children found to be fideicommissary beneficiaries. 329

[The facts] ..................................................................................... 329 [The Cato case] ............................................................................. 331 [The common law] ........................................................................ 332 [Tacit fideicommissa] ................................................................... 332 [Conditional fideicommissum plus sine liberis-clause suggests tacit appointment of fideicommissa] ..................................................... 333 [Cato case] .................................................................................... 335 [Common law—tacit fide

Documents

A Bsp Seminars Publication · webb v davis no and others 1998 (2) sa 975 (sca)..... 271 1993 277 harpur no v govindamall and another 1993 (4) sa 751 (a)..... 277 1992 297 hilda holt