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
Van Zyl v Master of the High Court (Bloemfontein) and Others (5501/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 238 (5 August 2024)
The court held that later wills were not validly executed, so they could not revoke the 2014 will. It set aside the November 2022 order and granted interim relief.
Maimane v Shole-Mashao N.O and Others (22-19945) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1207 (23 October 2023)
The High Court held that a will was invalid for non-compliance with Wills Act formalities and rejected reliance on section 2(3) without a counter-application.
Roux N.O and Another v Stemmet N.O and Others (17064/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 222 (23 August 2023)
The court held that the deceased did not personally draft or cause the drafting of 'POC5', nor did he ever receive, peruse, approve, or sign it. The necessary animus revocandi was absent, and the requirements of section 2A(c) of the Wills Act were not met. The impossibility principle does not apply to the execution or revocation of wills under South African law, as the Wills Act is interpreted strictly and does not accommodate exceptions for impossibility in these circumstances. The Plaintiffs' Particulars of Claim do not disclose a cause of action for the relief sought under either section 2…
Source excerpt
Mokoena v Molefe and Others (CIV APP FB 10/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 116 (7 August 2023)
Full Court appeal concerning the validity of a will and codicil under the Wills Act, with dispute over deletions, witness attestation, and an alleged forgery.
Solomon v Solomon and Another (17909/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 182 (20 July 2023)
The court found that the will dated 20 May 2020 was drafted and executed by the deceased, Percival Fairhurst Solomon, and was intended by him to be his last will and testament. The applicant failed to raise any genuine dispute of fact regarding the execution or intention behind the will. The first respondent and his wife had no prior knowledge of the deceased's intention to change his will, and their involvement was limited to witnessing the document at the deceased's request. The applicant's arguments regarding the timing of Mr Pillay's signature did not establish fraud or undue influence. T…
Source excerpt
Poolo and Others v Sithole N.O and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 461; 29850/2021 (9 June 2023)
The court dismissed an unopposed challenge to a will and executorship, finding no handwriting expert evidence of forgery and defective service on affected parties.
Tilayi and Another v Master Of The High Court, Mthatha Eastern Cape and Others (3588/2021) [2023] ZAECMHC 26 (10 May 2023)
The court dismissed an application to have an informal codicil accepted as a will under section 2(3) of the Wills Act, finding the deceased’s testamentary intent was not proved.
Erasmus and Others v Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein and Others (3255/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 166 (26 April 2023)
The court held that a handwritten 2021 document, though formally invalid, was intended by the deceased as his last will and testament.
Delport v Le Roux and Others (D1703/2021) [2022] ZAKZDHC 51 (24 November 2022)
The court found that the will submitted by the applicant did not comply with the formalities required by section 2(1) of the Wills Act, as the witnesses did not sign in the presence of the deceased or each other. Although section 2(3) allows for validation of a will where the testator's intention is clear, the court was not satisfied that the document was drafted or executed by the deceased personally, nor that it reflected his genuine intention. The evidence did not establish that the deceased intended the document to be his will, and the circumstances did not justify dispensing with the sta…
Source excerpt
De Bruin v Stoffberg NO and Others (3694/2018) [2020] ZAFSHC 140 (30 July 2020)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The main judgment had thoroughly considered the facts and legal arguments, and the applicant did not provide persuasive evidence that the will was improperly executed or that undue influence had occurred. The applicant's reliance on hearsay evidence was insufficient, and the surrounding circumstances did not support her allegations. The sale agreement could only be challenged by parties to the contract or the executor, not by the applicant as a beneficiary. The Master’s acceptance of the will w…
Source excerpt
Explore more
