Mapea v Mapea and Others (36401/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 288 (12 May 2021)

Mapea v Mapea and Others (36401/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 288 (12 May 2021)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the note was drafted or executed by the deceased with the intention that it be her Will. The note lacked clarity, proper formalities, and supporting affidavits from the commissioner of oaths. The deceased was not the lawful owner of the property at the time the note was executed, rendering any purported bequest legally invalid. The applicant's conduct, including contradictory statements and delay in producing the note, further undermined his case. The third respondent's version was accepted as the applicant failed to reply. The application for postponement was refused due to the applicant's awareness of proceedings and the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 288
Parties
Applicant: Lesetja Rocky Mapea; Respondent: Phephethwa Elsie Mapea N.O; Respondent: Master of the High Court; Respondent: Sizakele Monica Nhlapho
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Case Number
36401/2018
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
DT Skosana
Legal Topics
Wills Act Section 2 3, Declaratory Relief, Letters of Executorship, Joinder, Intestate Succession
Land and Property Civil Procedure Wills Act Section 2 3 Declaratory Relief Letters of Executorship Joinder 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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lesetja Rocky Mapea

Applicant

Phephethwa Elsie Mapea N.O

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Sizakele Monica Nhlapho

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the note attached as 'RM1' constitutes the valid Will and last testament of the deceased under section 2(3) of the Wills Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to be declared the sole beneficiary of the disputed property.
  3. 3 Whether the Master should accept the note as a Will for purposes of the Administration of Estates Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the note was drafted or executed by the deceased with the intention that it be her Will. The note lacked clarity, proper formalities, and supporting affidavits from the commissioner of oaths. The deceased was not the lawful owner of the property at the time the note was executed, rendering any purported bequest legally invalid. The applicant's conduct, including contradictory statements and delay in producing the note, further undermined his case. The third respondent's version was accepted as the applicant failed to reply. The application for postponement was refused due to the applicant's awareness of proceedings and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application.