Raubenheimer v Raubenheimer and Others (560/2011) [2012] ZASCA 97; 2012 (5) SA 290 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

Raubenheimer v Raubenheimer and Others (560/2011) [2012] ZASCA 97; 2012 (5) SA 290 (SCA) (1 June 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the testator intended the document GR2 to be his final will, as evidenced by his instructions, his deliberate signing, and his understanding of the need for witnesses. The absence of the list of specific bequests did not negate this intention, but simply indicated that no such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 97
Parties
Appellant: Christelle Raubenheimer; Respondent: Gerda Raubenheimer; Respondent: Stephanus Petrus Raubenheimer; Respondent: Jan Hendrik Hagen; Respondent: Master of the High Court North Gauteng
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 June 2012
Case Number
560/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; the will dated 30 March 2006 (GR2) is accepted as the testator's will under section 2(3) of the Wills Act.
Judges
Mpati, Nugent, Cachalia, Leach, Wallis
Legal Topics
Wills Act Section 2 3, Testamentary Intention, Fideicommissum, Construction of Wills, Formalities of Wills
Family and Children Land and Property Wills Act Section 2 3 Testamentary Intention Fideicommissum Construction of Wills Formalities of Wills

Source-derived case record

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

Christelle Raubenheimer

Appellant

Gerda Raubenheimer

Respondent

Stephanus Petrus Raubenheimer

Respondent

Jan Hendrik Hagen

Respondent

Master of the High Court North Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will dated 30 March 2006 (GR2) was intended by the testator to be his final will despite non-compliance with statutory formalities.
  2. 2 Whether the failure to attach a list of specific bequests rendered the will void for vagueness.
  3. 3 Whether the provisions regarding the usufruct over the common home created a fideicommissum and identified the fideicommissary beneficiaries.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the testator intended the document GR2 to be his final will, as evidenced by his instructions, his deliberate signing, and his understanding of the need for witnesses. The absence of the list of specific bequests did not negate this intention, but simply indicated that no such bequests were made. The court held that the failure to attach the list did not render the will void for vagueness. Regarding the bequest of the common home, the court interpreted the provision for a 'usufruct' as creating a fideicommissum, with the appellant as fiduciary and the respondents or their descendants as fideicommissary beneficiaries by necessary implication. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; the will dated 30 March 2006 (GR2) is accepted as the testator's will under section 2(3) of the Wills Act.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds, with costs.
  • Paragraph 1 of the order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: (a) The application in convention is dismissed. (b) The Master is ordered to accept the will dated 30 March 2006 (annexure 'GR2') as the will of the deceased for the purposes of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.