Bennett v Master of the Supreme Court (266/94) [1995] ZASCA 100 (18 September 1995)

Bennett v Master of the Supreme Court (266/94) [1995] ZASCA 100 (18 September 1995)

The court found that the document titled 'Request to draft a will' was not intended to be a will, but rather a set of instructions to a financial institution to draft a will. This was conceded by counsel for the appellant. As the document did not meet the requirements of section 2(3) of the Wills Act, the application was correctly dismissed by the court a quo. The court further found no reason to deprive the second respondent of his costs of appeal, rejecting the appellant's request that costs be paid out of the estate.

Citation
[1995] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Jacqueline Colleen Bennett; Respondent: The Master of the Supreme Court; Respondent: Charles Curtis Ruben de Vos
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 1995
Case Number
266/94
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division; Oral Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Joubert, Hefer, Vivier, F H Grosskopf, Van Coller
Legal Topics
Wills Act Formalities, Acceptance of Informal Wills, Costs on Appeal
Civil Procedure Family and Children Wills Act Formalities Acceptance of Informal Wills Costs on Appeal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Colleen Bennett

Appellant

The Master of the Supreme Court

Respondent

Charles Curtis Ruben de Vos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division; Oral Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a document titled 'Request to draft a will' can be accepted as a will under section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953.
  2. 2 Whether the costs of the appeal should be paid out of the estate if the appeal is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the document titled 'Request to draft a will' was not intended to be a will, but rather a set of instructions to a financial institution to draft a will. This was conceded by counsel for the appellant. As the document did not meet the requirements of section 2(3) of the Wills Act, the application was correctly dismissed by the court a quo. The court further found no reason to deprive the second respondent of his costs of appeal, rejecting the appellant's request that costs be paid out of the estate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.