Harpur NO v Govindamall and Another (730/91) [1993] ZASCA 110; 1993 (4) SA 751 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 582 (A) (6 September 1993)

Harpur NO v Govindamall and Another (730/91) [1993] ZASCA 110; 1993 (4) SA 751 (AD); [1993] 2 All SA 582 (A) (6 September 1993)

The majority of the court held that initialling by witnesses does not constitute a valid signature for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act, 7 of 1953, as it stood prior to the 1992 amendment. The court reasoned that the ordinary, popular meaning of 'sign' and 'signature' does not include initialling, and that the legislature, by distinguishing between marks and signatures, intended to exclude initialling by witnesses. The requirement for signatures is a safeguard against fraud and uncertainty, and initialling does not provide the same level of identification as a signature. The court acknowledged the historical Cape decisions but found that, under the 1953 Act, only a...

Citation
[1993] ZASCA 110
Parties
Appellant: Gregory David Harpur N.O.; Respondent: Govindamall; Respondent: The Master of the Supreme Court
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 1993
Case Number
730/91
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment in Application Proceedings
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The will was declared invalid for non-compliance with statutory formalities.
Judges
Corbett, Van Heerden, Eksteen, Nicholas, Kriegler
Legal Topics
Wills Act Formalities, Testamentary Capacity, Signature Requirements, Intestate Succession
Family and Children Land and Property Wills Act Formalities Testamentary Capacity Signature Requirements Intestate Succession

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gregory David Harpur N.O.

Appellant

Govindamall

Respondent

The Master of the Supreme Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment in Application Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does initialling by a witness constitute a valid signature for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act, 7 of 1953?
  2. 2 Was the will of the late Perumal Pillay executed in compliance with the statutory formalities required for validity?
  3. 3 Should the application to declare the will invalid be upheld or dismissed?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the court held that initialling by witnesses does not constitute a valid signature for the purposes of section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act, 7 of 1953, as it stood prior to the 1992 amendment. The court reasoned that the ordinary, popular meaning of 'sign' and 'signature' does not include initialling, and that the legislature, by distinguishing between marks and signatures, intended to exclude initialling by witnesses. The requirement for signatures is a safeguard against fraud and uncertainty, and initialling does not provide the same level of identification as a signature. The court acknowledged the historical Cape decisions but found that, under the 1953 Act, only a...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The will was declared invalid for non-compliance with statutory formalities.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs; costs of all parties, including the curator ad litem, to be paid out of the estate of the late Perumal Pillay No 5132/86 on the scale as between attorney and client.