Freidrich and Others v Smit NO and Others (1028/2015) [2017] ZASCA 19; 2017 (4) SA 144 (SCA) (23 March 2017)

Freidrich and Others v Smit NO and Others (1028/2015) [2017] ZASCA 19; 2017 (4) SA 144 (SCA) (23 March 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mrs Friedrich failed to discharge the burden of proving her entitlement to reasonable maintenance from the deceased’s estate as required by the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. She did not provide evidence of her financial needs, inability to support herself, or her standard of living during the marriage. The actuarial report relied upon was inadmissible hearsay, and her explanations regarding her employment status and use of funds were unconvincing and unsupported by documentary evidence. Both the trial court and the full court erred by finding her entitled to maintenance despite the absence of evidence. The appeal was upheld, the Master’s...

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 19
Parties
Appellant: Marthinus van Rooyen Friedrich; Appellant: Marelize Friedrich; Appellant: Nicolene Friedrich; Respondent: Adriaan Louw Smit NO; Respondent: Susanna Maria Friedrich; Respondent: The Master of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2017
Case Number
1028/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, Following Trial and Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the full court is set aside and substituted. The second respondent’s claim for maintenance is removed from the estate. Costs awarded to the appellants.
Judges
Tshiqi, Petse, Mbha, Fourie, Molemela
Legal Topics
Maintenance of Surviving Spouse, Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, Liquidation and Distribution Account, Burden of Proof, Appeal Procedure
Family and Children Civil Procedure Maintenance of Surviving Spouse Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act Liquidation and Distribution Account Burden of Proof Appeal Procedure

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marthinus van Rooyen Friedrich

Appellant

Marelize Friedrich

Appellant

Nicolene Friedrich

Appellant

Adriaan Louw Smit NO

Respondent

Susanna Maria Friedrich

Respondent

The Master of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, Following Trial and Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second respondent, as surviving spouse, proved entitlement to reasonable maintenance from the deceased's estate under the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act.
  2. 2 Whether the trial and full court erred in finding the second respondent entitled to maintenance despite lack of evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the Master’s decision and the executor’s inclusion of the maintenance claim should be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Mrs Friedrich failed to discharge the burden of proving her entitlement to reasonable maintenance from the deceased’s estate as required by the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act. She did not provide evidence of her financial needs, inability to support herself, or her standard of living during the marriage. The actuarial report relied upon was inadmissible hearsay, and her explanations regarding her employment status and use of funds were unconvincing and unsupported by documentary evidence. Both the trial court and the full court erred by finding her entitled to maintenance despite the absence of evidence. The appeal was upheld, the Master’s...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the full court is set aside and substituted. The second respondent’s claim for maintenance is removed from the estate. Costs awarded to the appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld and the second respondent is ordered to pay the costs, including costs of the condonation application.
  • The order of the full court is set aside and substituted with an order upholding the appeal with costs and ordering the second respondent to pay these costs.