Patricia Shelly Hoste N.O and Another v Karen Lotter N.O and Others (3710/2015) [2018] ZAECGHC 77 (10 May 2018)

Patricia Shelly Hoste N.O and Another v Karen Lotter N.O and Others (3710/2015) [2018] ZAECGHC 77 (10 May 2018)

The court found that while Mrs. Stoffberg's conduct in relation to Wills 3, 4, and 5 was fraudulent and deserving of censure, the evidence regarding Will 6 was decisive. The direct testimony of Mr. Greene established that the deceased read and signed each page of Will 6 in the presence of two witnesses, satisfying the formal requirements of the Wills Act. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving that Will 6 was procured by fraud or undue influence. The presumption of validity was not rebutted, and the expert evidence regarding the sequence of signatures did not outweigh the direct evidence of proper execution. Accordingly, Will 6 was held to be valid.

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 77
Parties
Plaintiff: Patricia Shelly Hoste N.O.; Plaintiff: Deborah Anne Hotz N.O.; Defendant: Karen Lotter N.O.; Defendant: Dirk Stoffberg; Defendant: Gordon Gary Stoffberg; Defendant: Girls and Boys Town SA; Defendant: Salvation Army; Defendant: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - East London; Defendant: Saint Bernards Church; Defendant: South African Air Force Association; Defendant: Durban High School; Defendant: Wanderers Cricket Club; Defendant: Christine Gale Odendaal; Defendant: Merle Williamson; Defendant: Debra Jennings; Defendant: Jordana Malkoff; Defendant: Saint Dominics Hospice; Defendant: Bettina Van Nieuwenhuizen; Defendant: The Master of the High Court, Grahamstown; Defendant: 24 Squadron, Johannesburg
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2018
Case Number
3710/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim for invalidity of Will 6 is dismissed. Will 6 is declared valid.
Judges
Pickering
Legal Topics
Wills Act Formalities, Fraud in Execution of Will, Burden of Proof, Succession, Testamentary Capacity
Land and Property Civil Procedure Wills Act Formalities Fraud in Execution of Will Burden of Proof Succession Testamentary Capacity

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Shelly Hoste N.O.

Plaintiff

Deborah Anne Hotz N.O.

Plaintiff

Karen Lotter N.O.

Defendant

Dirk Stoffberg

Defendant

Gordon Gary Stoffberg

Defendant

Girls and Boys Town SA

Defendant

Salvation Army

Defendant

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - East London

Defendant

Saint Bernards Church

Defendant

South African Air Force Association

Defendant

Durban High School

Defendant

Wanderers Cricket Club

Defendant

Christine Gale Odendaal

Defendant

Merle Williamson

Defendant

Debra Jennings

Defendant

Jordana Malkoff

Defendant

Saint Dominics Hospice

Defendant

Bettina Van Nieuwenhuizen

Defendant

The Master of the High Court, Grahamstown

Defendant

24 Squadron, Johannesburg

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Will 6 dated 25 March 2012 was validly executed in accordance with the Wills Act.
  2. 2 Whether Will 6 should be declared invalid due to fraud or undue influence.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs discharged the onus of proving invalidity of Will 6.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while Mrs. Stoffberg's conduct in relation to Wills 3, 4, and 5 was fraudulent and deserving of censure, the evidence regarding Will 6 was decisive. The direct testimony of Mr. Greene established that the deceased read and signed each page of Will 6 in the presence of two witnesses, satisfying the formal requirements of the Wills Act. The plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving that Will 6 was procured by fraud or undue influence. The presumption of validity was not rebutted, and the expert evidence regarding the sequence of signatures did not outweigh the direct evidence of proper execution. Accordingly, Will 6 was held to be valid.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim for invalidity of Will 6 is dismissed. Will 6 is declared valid.

Orders

  • Will 6 dated 25 March 2012 is declared to be the valid Last Will and Testament of the deceased.
  • Plaintiffs' claim for invalidity of Will 6 is dismissed.