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
Mokgoro and Others v Master of the High Court, Kimberley and Others (09/2025) [2025] ZANCHC 60 (1 August 2025)
The High Court held that a will emailed with electronic signatures could be accepted under section 2(3) of the Wills Act because the deceased’s intention was clear.
Jagers v Pienaar and Others (4108/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 3 (23 January 2025)
The High Court held that a handwritten “Will Questionnaire” satisfied section 2(3) of the Wills Act and must be accepted as the deceased’s will.
Hart v Hart and Others (2453/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 381; [2025] 1 All SA 373 (WCC); 2025 (3) SA 286 (WCC) (20 November 2024)
The court held that a widow under a special bequest could insist on selling the property and reinvesting the proceeds, subject only to the executors’ approval of the investment.
F.Z.M v S.M and Others (2995/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 343 (31 October 2024)
The High Court ordered the Master to accept a disputed document as the deceased’s will under s 2(3) of the Wills Act, finding testamentary intent and capacity proved.
Mavuso v Master of the High Court and Another (4178/2023) [2024] ZAMPMHC 41 (13 August 2024)
The court found that the Will dated 16 February 2016 was executed by the deceased, as confirmed by affidavits from two witnesses. The absence of commissioner of oaths certification, required under section 2(1)(a)(v) of the Wills Act, was acknowledged, but the court held that section 2(3) allows condonation of such noncompliance if the document was intended to be the testator's Will. The court examined the contents and context of the Will and concluded that it reflected the deceased's intention to bequeath his estate to his grandson. The objections raised by the Second Respondent regarding the…
Source excerpt
Ungerer v Ungerer and Others (2083/2024) [2024] ZAECMKHC 90 (2 August 2024)
The court found that the disputed 2022 Will was neither drafted nor executed by the deceased, but rather by Capital Legacy on instructions. There was no evidence that the deceased approved all contents or intended the unsigned document to be her final will. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the deceased's failure to sign the will during the eight months before her death. Section 2(3) of the Wills Act requires strict compliance: the document must be drafted or executed by the deceased and intended to be their will. As these requirements were not met, the court was…
Source excerpt
Masilo v Master Of The High Court, Johannesburg and Others (2021/35301) [2024] ZAGPJHC 491 (13 May 2024)
The High Court held that a two-page will signed only on the second page was valid under section 2(3) of the Wills Act because the deceased intended it as her last will.
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.
Lange and Another v Henegan and Others (45732/18) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1493 (15 November 2023)
The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the testator intended the minute from Citadel Investments (annexure POC3) to be his will, thereby excluding the first and second defendants as beneficiaries. The evidence, including direct instructions to the plaintiffs and corroborating witness testimony, established the necessary animus testandi. The court adopted a flexible approach to the drafting requirement under section 2(3) of the Wills Act, holding that the document need not be personally drafted by the deceased if the intention is clear. The animosity between the testator and his…
Source excerpt
Wade v Master of the High Court of South Africa and Others (2022-060221) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1152 (11 October 2023)
The court found that the disputed document was signed by the deceased and both witnesses in each other's presence, and its content clearly indicated it was intended to be a will. The only formal defect was the placement of the second witness's signature on a separate page, which did not detract from the testamentary intention. The respondents' challenges to the applicant's credibility and the relationship with the deceased were irrelevant to the determination of intention at the time of signing. The Plascon-Evans rule required the court to accept the applicant's version in the absence of bona…
Source excerpt
Explore more
