Month: October 2021

Deceased’s will declared invalid, despite clear wishes

The Wills Act sets out the requirements for a valid Last Will and Testament. For a will to be valid, it must be signed and witnessed. What happens if the wishes of the deceased are clear, but the document does not meet the requirements of a valid will?

This was the heart of the matter in Estate Late Elaine Ilsia Williams and Others v Hendricks and Another, heard in the Western Cape High Court.

In this matter, the close relations of the deceased sought an order directing the Master of the High Court to accept as a will for the purposes of the Administration of Estates Act, a pro forma document signed by the deceased in which she gave instructions to a bank to draft her Last Will and Testament.

The nature of the bank document was consistent with its printed title, “Will Application/Aansoek om testament.” It is apparent from the terms of the document that the bank offers a service for the drafting of wills. The service is provided free of charge if the bank’s trustee company is nominated as the executor.

The deceased’s instructions to the bank in respect of the content of the will were framed as follows: “I would like to give my full estate to my son until he is of age as well as any other monetary payouts as a result of any claims.” It would appear that the deceased also wished her will to provide that the bequest to her son should be administered in a trust until the child attained the age of 21.

The will application form was completed by the deceased with the assistance of a representative of the bank on the day before she died. She was terminally ill with cancer at the time. The deceased passed away before her instructions for the drafting of a will were executed.

The applicants relied on Section 2(3) of the Wills Act: “If a court is satisfied that a document or the amendment of a document drafted or executed by a person who has died since the drafting or execution thereof, was intended to be his will or an amendment of his will, the court shall order the Master to accept that document, or that document as amended, for the purposes of the Administration of Estates Act, 1965 (Act 66 of 1965), as a will, although it does not comply with all the formalities for the execution or amendment of wills referred to in subsection (1).”

As is evident from the wording of Section 2(3) of the Wills Act, it is required of an applicant seeking an order of the sort contemplated by the provision to establish, amongst other things, that the document in question was intended by the deceased person to be his or her will. It is in that regard that the application runs into difficulty on the merits. Nothing specifically indicates that the deceased intended the document to be anything other than what it appears to be – an instruction to the bank to draft a will.

The court held that there was no evidence that the deceased intended the will application to be anything other than an application for a proper will to be drafted. Therefore, the applicants failed to prove the requirement that the deceased intended the document to be her last will and testament, as required by Section 2(3) of the Wills Act.

Courts are wary to declare documents that do not comply with the requirements of the Wills Act as valid wills. It is advisable to obtain professional assistance from an attorney or a fiduciary expert with the drafting of your Last Will and Testament.

Reference List:

  • Wills Act 7 of 1953
  • Estate Late Elaine Ilsia Williams and Others v Hendricks and Another [2021] ZAWCHC 66

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

High court reverses the discriminatory Black Marriage Law

In the Edelstein judgment, which was handed down in 1952, the Appellate Division (as it then was) held that there is a rebuttable presumption that all civil marriages are deemed to be in community of property by default. In other words, should a couple not conclude an antenuptial contract before they get married, their marriage will automatically be in community of property.

However, the Appellate Division went on to hold that civil marriages in terms of the Black Administration Act 38 of 1927 (an Act that is no longer in force in our law) were an exception to this rule, as marriages in terms of the Black Administration Act were out of community of property by default.

On 2 December 1988, the Marriage and Matrimonial Property Amendment Act 3 of 1988 repealed section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act, and section 21 was inserted into the Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984.

Section 21(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act held that spouses who entered into an out of community of property marriage before 2 December 1988, in terms of section 22(6) of the Black Administration Act, may cause the Matrimonial Property Act to apply to their marriage by the execution and registration in a registry within two years after the commencement of a notarial contract to that effect.

In other words, section 21(2)(a) gave persons married in terms of the Black Administration Act prior to 2 December 1988, a two-year grace period to make the Matrimonial Property Act applicable to their marriage. If the Matrimonial Property Act was not made applicable to their marriage within the two-year grace period, their marriage remained out of community of property.

In essence, the effect of section 21(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act was that if persons were married in terms of the Black Administration Act before 2 December 1988 and did not change their marital regime to be one of in community of property, their marriage would remain out of community of property.

In a nutshell, after 2 December 1988, any civil marriage entered into without the signing of an antenuptial contract before the marriage, would automatically be in community of property.

On 24 January 2020, the KwaZulu-Natal High Court held that section 21(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act does not pass constitutional muster, in that it discriminates unfairly on the grounds of gender and race.

On 14 April 2021, the Constitutional Court confirmed the High Court’s order and held that section 21(2)(a) of the Matrimonial Property Act is unconstitutional and invalid for perpetuating the discrimination created by section 22(6).

The Constitutional Court ordered that all civil marriages prior to 2 December 1988 are henceforth declared to be in community of property. The Constitutional Court went on to hold that a couple married in terms of the Black Administration Act who does not wish to be married in community of property and wishes for their marriage to remain out of community of property, essentially “opting out” of this order, is required to notify the Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs in writing accordingly.

The Constitutional Court further provided that in the event of a disagreement between spouses in a marriage that becomes a marriage in community of property in terms of the order, either spouse may apply to the High Court for an order that the marriage shall not be in community of property.

The evidence adduced in the Constitutional Court was that there could be more than 400 000 marriages that are affected by the order. The effects of this order are therefore far-reaching.

Reference List:

  • Edelstein v Edelstein NO and Others 1952 (3) SA 1 (A)
  • Black Administration Act 38 of 1927
  • Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984
  • Marriage and Matrimonial Property Amendment Act 3 of 1988
  • Sithole and Another v Sithole and Another 2020 ZAKZDHC 1
  • Sithole v Sithole and Another 2021 ZACC 7

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Important concepts defined in The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill

The Domestic Violence Amendment Bill (the Bill) was introduced in the National Assembly in September 2020 but has yet to be signed  into law by the President. There are various positive and helpful amendments presented in the bill. The Bill will come into operation on a date fixed by the President through the proclamation in the Gazette.

The concept and definition of domestic violence has been broadened extensively in the Bill. It now includes spiritual abuse, elder abuse, coercive behaviours, controlling behaviour, and exposing or subjecting children to behaviour listed in the domestic violence definitions clause. It also makes provision for conduct that harms, or inspires the reasonable belief that harm may be caused to the Complainant or a related person.

Some of the amendments in the Bill are summarised below:

Elder abuse, sexual harassment, and spiritual abuse has now been defined

Elder abuse refers to abusive behaviour in a relationship with an older person and can include financial abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse, as well as controlling behaviours like social isolation or intentional and unintentional neglect.

It unfortunately happens frequently that parents invite their children to live with them and after a short while elder abuse commences. The Bill aims to provide the necessary protection to the elderly.

‘Sexual harassment’ is a separate section under ‘Sexual abuse’ and inter alia means:

  1. Unwelcome sexual attention from a person who knows or ought to reasonably know that such attention is unwelcome;
  2. Unwelcome suggestions, gestures messages and remarks;
  3. Implied and expressed promises or reward for complying with a sexually oriented request.

There have also been various court cases recently where pastors, priests, and other religious leaders have been charged with inter alia, rape and or sexual assault and invariably it happens that over a period of time there has been the use of spiritual or beliefs and practices to control and dominate a person. An interdict can now be obtained as soon as there has been spiritual abuse.

Duty to report commission of domestic violence.

It is an offence should a person fail to report his / her knowledge that an act of domestic violence has been committed against a child, person with a disability or an elderly person.

Arrest by peace officer

A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest any person at the scene of an incident of domestic violence, and may enter the premises where an element of violence has allegedly been committed during an incident of domestic violence without a warrant.

Positive duty on those in the health care and education sector.

The Bill places a positive duty on those in the health and education sector to screen, counsel, and provide emergency medical treatment to a victim.

Online application and service

An application may be brought by submitting an online affidavit as prescribed, and may be brought outside ordinary court hours if the court has a reasonable belief that the complainant may suffer harm.

The interim protection order may be served by the clerk of the Court electronically.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

Death during a divorce: Who takes care of the funeral?

“Family feuds, in relation to who has the right to bury a deceased person, has the potential of permanently dividing the family. These are sensitive disputes that are best suited to be mediated and resolved by family elders rather than being brought to court where there is no winner and a united family structure ends up divided and torn apart. It is a time where the family should be united more than ever, preparing to give the loved one a dignified burial, rather than airing their dirty linen in court”.

Polokwane High Court Judge Maake Kganyago stated the latter when handing down her judgment in the Mabulana v Mabulana and Others (LP) (unreported case no 5040/2021, 26-7-2021) matter.

The High Court dismissed Mrs Mabulana’s (the Applicant) application to interdict Gledies and Sophy Mabulana (the Respondents) from burying the Applicant’s estranged husband, Wilard Mabulana (the deceased). Gledies was the deceased’s sister-in-law and Sophy the deceased’s sister. Gledies took care of the deceased since 2013, especially while he was sick.

The Applicant and deceased were married on 3 July 1996 and three children were born from their marriage. However, as the years passed, the couple realised that their marriage was on rocky waters. The deceased decided to move out of their matrimonial home in 2018 and the couple effectively separated.

On 9 January 2018, the Applicant instituted divorce proceedings against the deceased on the grounds that she had no more love or affection towards the deceased. The deceased was apparently disgruntled by the pending divorce proceedings, but eventually agreed that a decree of divorce should be sought on an unopposed basis. The parties further agreed that their joint estate would be equally divided between them. During a court appearance on 30 June 2021, the parties agreed to postpone the hearing of the divorce to 28 July 2021. The reason for the postponement was that the Applicant had to obtain the assistance of an interpreter. The divorce would likely have been finalised on 30 June 2021, was it not for the postponement.

On 18 July 2021, the Applicant was informed by one of her children that the deceased had passed away. The Applicant, therefore, started preparing and making arrangements for the deceased’s burial. When the Applicant approached the burial services to claim the body, she was advised that the Respondents brought the deceased to them and that they accordingly cannot assist the Applicant. This led to the Applicant instituting an application to interdict the Respondents from burying the deceased.

The Applicant submitted that she had a clear right to bury the deceased as she had been married to the deceased, and the deceased’s will was silent on the issue of the person who had to prepare and arrange the deceased’s funeral.

The court held that it was evident from the facts of the matter that the Applicant had lost her love, affection, and respect towards the deceased. The Applicant failed to explain how the death of the deceased had restored the lost love, affection, and respect towards the deceased when she was on the verge of divorcing him.

The court pointed out that the deceased, in his will, did not give directions as to who would be responsible for arranging his burial. The deceased, however, made a separate will, despite being married in community of property with the Applicant, and in that will had disinherited the Applicant. According to the court, this was a sign that the deceased had made his position clear that he had severed ties with the Applicant.

The court referred to Trollip v Du Plessis and Another where the court held that it was within the bounds of reasonableness to respect the wishes of the deceased, whether expressed in a testament or not, and if no such preference was expressed, to resort to the wishes of the heirs.

During the deceased’s final days, he was in the care of the Gledies and expressed his wish that Gledies should bury him. The Applicant was not present when the deceased passed away and they have been separated from each other for a long time.

In turning down the wife’s application, the judge held the wishes of the deceased had to be respected.

This article is a general information sheet and should not be used or relied on as legal or other professional advice. No liability can be accepted for any errors or omissions nor for any loss or damage arising from reliance upon any information herein. Always contact your legal adviser for specific and detailed advice. Errors and omissions excepted (E&OE)

© 2024

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑