Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Du Preez and Others v Master of the High Court and Others (45184/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 299 (26 February 2024)
The court held that a divorce settlement order conflicted with the deceased’s will and amounted to a revocation under section 2A(c) of the Wills Act.
Thobejane v Master of the High Court Gauteng Division, Pretoria and Others (960/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1854 (27 October 2023)
The Court found that the deceased did not personally draft the 2019 Will, nor was there evidence that he instructed the Fifth Respondent to draft it. The Applicant conceded that the deceased did not draft the Will himself. There was no evidence that the deceased perused or approved the contents of the 2019 Will after it was emailed to him. The Court held that the requirements of section 2A(c) of the Wills Act were not met, as there was no conduct or written evidence demonstrating the deceased's intention to revoke the 2015 Will. Oral discussions and surrounding circumstances were insufficient…
Source excerpt
Kinnear and Another v Master of the High Court and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 180; 36165/2021 (24 March 2023)
The court found that the unsigned document did not meet the jurisdictional requirements of section 2(3) of the Wills Act. There was insufficient evidence that the deceased personally drafted or executed the document, or that she intended it to be her will. The evidence presented by the applicants was largely hearsay, and the financial adviser did not substantiate the deceased's instructions or confirm that she had sight of the document. The court held that the deceased had ample opportunity to finalize and sign a new will but did not do so. On the balance of probabilities, the applicants fail…
Source excerpt
Nhlapho-Masoeu and Others v Mokoena and Others (4373/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 7 (27 January 2022)
The court found that the 2019 joint will did not effect a massing, as it appointed the late Mr Masoeu as the sole and universal heir of the late Mrs Masoeu. Upon her death, he acquired full ownership of the joint estate and was entitled to deal with it as he wished, including bequeathing it to the first respondent. Clause 5 of the 2019 joint will did not create a resolutive condition or restrict his ownership. The applicants were disinherited by the terms of the 2019 joint will and are not beneficiaries of the estate. The Rule Nisi was discharged as the applicants failed to establish any righ…
Source excerpt
Marshall v Baker NO and Others (9510/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 13; 2020 (3) SA 463 (WCC) (25 February 2020)
The court found that the deceased, an educated and meticulous planner, was fully aware of the legal requirements for a valid will, having previously executed wills in compliance with those requirements. The 2018 document, although handwritten and signed by the deceased, was not witnessed and was sent to Chris Baker, an attorney, for advice and further finalisation. The WhatsApp exchange indicated that the deceased regarded the document as preliminary thoughts regarding an updated will, not as his final testamentary instruction. The absence of a nominated executor and the failure to deal with…
Source excerpt
Roos v Saaiman NO and Others (19759/16) [2017] ZAGPPHC 683; 2018 (6) SA 279 (GP) (27 October 2017)
The High Court held that a signed 2011 letter to Absa Trust revoked the deceased's 1994 will, so she died intestate and her surviving spouse inherited.
Assumption and Another v Reid and Others (3328/2015) [2017] ZAECPEHC 21 (22 February 2017)
The High Court found the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when signing the 2009 will, so it was invalid and the earlier will remained in force.
S and Others v V N.O and Others (28329/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 221 (11 August 2016)
The court found that the 2012 will revoked the 2011 will and that the scanned copy of the 2012 will, emailed to the executor and others, was valid and reflected the deceased's intentions. The common law presumption of animus revocandi did not apply because there was insufficient evidence that the deceased destroyed the original 2012 will with intent to revoke it, and the search for the original was inadequate. Even if the presumption applied, it was rebutted by the deceased's consistent conduct in maintaining valid wills and communicating his wishes. The court exercised its discretion under s…
Source excerpt
Herman and Others v Wiggill and Others (EL961/2013; ECD2161/13) [2015] ZAECELLC 12 (18 September 2015)
The High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the deceased lacked testamentary capacity or was unduly influenced when signing the second will.
Van Straaten v Ottman and Others (10838/11) [2015] ZAKZPHC 17 (19 March 2015)
The court refused to treat a handwritten letter as the deceased’s will, finding insufficient proof of testamentary intent under section 2(3) of the Wills Act.
Explore more
