Van Heerden and Another v Van Heerden and Others (1895/2014) [2018] ZAECGHC 118 (22 November 2018)

Van Heerden and Another v Van Heerden and Others (1895/2014) [2018] ZAECGHC 118 (22 November 2018)

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving Professor van Heerden lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2010 will. The expert evidence presented by the plaintiffs was speculative, relying on inadequate medical records and a misrepresentation of vascular dementia. In contrast, direct evidence from family, friends, and professionals present at the execution of the will, including independent witnesses, established that Professor van Heerden understood the nature and effect of his actions, communicated his wishes, and was compos mentis. The court held that the 2010 will was valid, and the action to declare it invalid and reinstate the 2004 will must...

Citation
[2018] ZAECGHC 118
Parties
Plaintiff: Karel-Willem van Heerden; Plaintiff: Cornelius Stephanus van Heerden; Defendant: Anna Elizabeth Fredrika van Heerden; Defendant: Willem Frederick van Heerden; Defendant: Elizabeth Fredrika (Hendrika) Vorster; Defendant: Paul Jakobus van Heerden; Defendant: Karen Annelise van Heerden; Defendant: Heloise van Heerden; Defendant: Christina Maria van Heerden N.O.; Defendant: Liesel Greyvenstein N.O.; Defendant: The Master of the High Court, Port Elizabeth; Defendant: The Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Case Number
1895/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs.
Judges
Plasket
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Wills Act, Onus of Proof, Succession, Estate Administration
Family and Children Land and Property Testamentary Capacity Wills Act Onus of Proof Succession Estate Administration

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karel-Willem van Heerden

Plaintiff

Cornelius Stephanus van Heerden

Plaintiff

Anna Elizabeth Fredrika van Heerden

Defendant

Willem Frederick van Heerden

Defendant

Elizabeth Fredrika (Hendrika) Vorster

Defendant

Paul Jakobus van Heerden

Defendant

Karen Annelise van Heerden

Defendant

Heloise van Heerden

Defendant

Christina Maria van Heerden N.O.

Defendant

Liesel Greyvenstein N.O.

Defendant

The Master of the High Court, Port Elizabeth

Defendant

The Registrar of Deeds, Cape Town

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Professor Karel-Willem van Heerden had testamentary capacity when executing the 2010 will.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs discharged the onus to prove incapacity at the time of execution of the 2010 will.
  3. 3 Whether the 2010 will should be declared invalid and the 2004 will reinstated as the last will and testament.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to discharge the onus of proving Professor van Heerden lacked testamentary capacity when executing the 2010 will. The expert evidence presented by the plaintiffs was speculative, relying on inadequate medical records and a misrepresentation of vascular dementia. In contrast, direct evidence from family, friends, and professionals present at the execution of the will, including independent witnesses, established that Professor van Heerden understood the nature and effect of his actions, communicated his wishes, and was compos mentis. The court held that the 2010 will was valid, and the action to declare it invalid and reinstate the 2004 will must...

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The action is dismissed with costs.