M.Z.O N.O and Another v S.M and Others (2372/2024; 5234/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 40 (13 February 2025)

M.Z.O N.O and Another v S.M and Others (2372/2024; 5234/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 40 (13 February 2025)

The court found that only those codicils accepted by the Master of the High Court, in compliance with the Wills Act, could be considered valid and enforceable. The rejected codicils, including the one purporting to amend the bequest of the property, had no legal effect. The will clearly bequeathed the property to the granddaughter upon her reaching the age of 21, subject to the usufruct of the deceased's wife and certain leasing preferences. The applicants, as trustees, failed to establish that the conditions for transfer and eviction had been met, and did not demonstrate that the respondents' occupation was unlawful under the terms of the will and trust. Accordingly, both applications...

Citation
[2025] ZAFSHC 40
Parties
Applicant: M[...] Z[...] O[...] N.O.; Applicant: Christiaan Wagenaar N.O.; Respondent: S[...] M[...]; Respondent: Any Unknown Unlawful Occupiers residing at 1[...] B[...] Street, District Ladybrand, Free State Province; Respondent: Matsopa Local Municipality; Applicant: S[...] K[...] M[...]; Applicant: N[...] N[...] M[...]; Respondent: N[...] M[...] M[...]; Respondent: Daniel Johannes Rudolph Schutte N.O.; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Free State; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Bloemfontein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Case Number
2372/2024; 5234/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Consolidation of Two Applications
Outcome
Both applications are dismissed with costs.
Judges
Hefer AJ
Legal Topics
Wills and Codicils, Usufruct, Trust Property, Testamentary Disposition
Land and Property Civil Procedure Wills and Codicils Usufruct Trust Property Testamentary Disposition

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M[...] Z[...] O[...] N.O.

Applicant

Christiaan Wagenaar N.O.

Applicant

S[...] M[...]

Respondent

Any Unknown Unlawful Occupiers residing at 1[...] B[...] Street, District Ladybrand, Free State Province

Respondent

Matsopa Local Municipality

Respondent

S[...] K[...] M[...]

Applicant

N[...] N[...] M[...]

Applicant

N[...] M[...] M[...]

Respondent

Daniel Johannes Rudolph Schutte N.O.

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Free State

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Bloemfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Consolidation of Two Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the codicils to the deceased's will are valid and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the bequest of Erf 5[...] Ladybrand to the granddaughter is subject to the conditions in the will and codicils.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants, as trustees, are entitled to evict the respondents from the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that only those codicils accepted by the Master of the High Court, in compliance with the Wills Act, could be considered valid and enforceable. The rejected codicils, including the one purporting to amend the bequest of the property, had no legal effect. The will clearly bequeathed the property to the granddaughter upon her reaching the age of 21, subject to the usufruct of the deceased's wife and certain leasing preferences. The applicants, as trustees, failed to establish that the conditions for transfer and eviction had been met, and did not demonstrate that the respondents' occupation was unlawful under the terms of the will and trust. Accordingly, both applications...

Court Disposition

Both applications are dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Application number 2372/2024 is dismissed with costs.
  • Application number 5234/2024 is dismissed with costs.