Mahlangu and Others v Mahlangu and Others (73302/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 491 (19 September 2019)

Mahlangu and Others v Mahlangu and Others (73302/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 491 (19 September 2019)

The court found that the application was not urgent, as applicants had known of the will since October 2018 and only launched proceedings ten months later without any intervening action. The urgency was self-created and did not justify deviation from normal procedures. On the merits, applicants failed to provide any evidence of undue influence, duress, or lack of testamentary capacity, relying solely on unsubstantiated allegations. The application was further flawed by being brought by way of motion proceedings despite the clear likelihood of factual disputes. The conduct of applicants' legal representatives was found to be seriously negligent, warranting a punitive costs order de bonis...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 491
Parties
Applicant: Mabusejan Mahlangu; Applicant: Father Moses Mahlangu; Applicant: Christinah Suzan Mahlangu; Respondent: Dina Mahlangu; Respondent: Master of the High Court; Respondent: ABSA Quagga Centre; Respondent: Ofentse Victor Kowane; Respondent: Desiree Molobela; Respondent: O.O. Olifant
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2019
Case Number
73302/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Declare Will Invalid and Remove Executrix
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs order against applicants' attorney and counsel.
Judges
J.J.C. Swanepoel
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Removal of Executrix, Urgent Application Abuse, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Civil Procedure Family and Children Land and Property Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Removal of Executrix Urgent Application Abuse Costs De Bonis Propriis

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mabusejan Mahlangu

Applicant

Father Moses Mahlangu

Applicant

Christinah Suzan Mahlangu

Applicant

Dina Mahlangu

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

ABSA Quagga Centre

Respondent

Ofentse Victor Kowane

Respondent

Desiree Molobela

Respondent

O.O. Olifant

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief to Declare Will Invalid and Remove Executrix

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to declare the will invalid and remove the executrix is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the will of the deceased was procured by undue influence, duress, or lack of testamentary capacity.
  3. 3 Whether the application should have been brought by way of motion proceedings or summons.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not urgent, as applicants had known of the will since October 2018 and only launched proceedings ten months later without any intervening action. The urgency was self-created and did not justify deviation from normal procedures. On the merits, applicants failed to provide any evidence of undue influence, duress, or lack of testamentary capacity, relying solely on unsubstantiated allegations. The application was further flawed by being brought by way of motion proceedings despite the clear likelihood of factual disputes. The conduct of applicants' legal representatives was found to be seriously negligent, warranting a punitive costs order de bonis...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs order against applicants' attorney and counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Applicants' attorney and counsel, Mr. Mashifane and Adv. S Mngomezulu, are ordered to pay the costs of the application de bonis propriis, on an attorney/client scale jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.