University Of South Africa Law School class of 2018

1. Gibson Mateyu
PVL2602 Assignment
01
Question 1
• William is entitled to R100 000 as accrual therefore R1 300 000 – R100 000 = R1 200 000 which
becomes the value of the estate.
• William is entitled to inherit a child’s portion or R250 000 whichever is the greater.
• Therefore, A child’s portion = R1200 000 /4 (Samuel, Dina, Gerald+1 = R300 000 which is greater
than R250 000, Which means that William inherits R300 000.
• The remaining R900 000 (R1200 000 – R300 000) has to be divided amongst the children thus R900
000/3 = R300 000 each.
• Because Gerald is predeceased, his share of R300 000 will go to William’s grandson, Frans by the way
of representation.
• Dina repudiates the inheritance, his share of R300 000 must go to William interms of s1(6) of the
Interstate Succession Act which provides that if a descendant refuses to inherit, his or her share goes
to the surviving spouse.
• Mary, John’s mother and Ben John’s brother, inherit nothing because Mary is an ascendant and Ben
is a relative in the collateral line, there are closer relatives who excludes them.

2. Question 2
2.1
• Martin signed at the top instead of signing just after the last sentence of the last paragraph that is
contrary to Section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act which clearly states that the will is signed at the end thereof
by the testator or by same other person in his direction1
. This means that the testor must sign the will
as close as reasonable possible to the concluding words of the will and a failure to do so invalidates
the will. The question under discussion is similar to Kidwell v The Master, the court held that the
testator’s signature must appear as close as reasonably possible to the concluding words2
of the will
making this will unable to comply with the formalities for a valid will.
• Anyone who writes out a Will or who witnesses a Will is disqualified from receiving any benefit from
that Will according to section 4(1) of the Wills Act. In this case Terry is inheriting Matin’s Ferrari yet
he also signs as a witness which is contrary to the Wills Act. This is so in this case, unless if the will
has also be attested by two other people who are not the beneficiaries to that will according to section
4(2)(c)3
, only Elaine attested and there is no other attester except Terry who is a beneficiary on this
matter the will could not comply with formalities for a valid will.
• Martin signed with mark in the absence of a commissioner of oaths because initials are a form of a
mark as decided by the court in the Appellate Division in Hurpur v Govindalmall, where the court
ruled that initials constitutes a form of a mark. However this was revised through the parliament which
redefined the definition of sign, to state that it includes the making of initials and only in the case of
testator the marking of a mark. The Wills Act then provides that a person can sign his will by the
making of a mark. In such an instance, a Commissioner of Oaths has to co-sign the will and confirm
by means of a certificate on the will that he has satisfied himself as to the identity of the person and
that the will is that of the person.
• Martin’s secretary, Elaine, and his brother Terry also signed the second page and at the top of the page.
The position of the witnesses' signatures on the page, higher or lower on the page than the testator's
signature, does not prove when the witnesses signed, therefore the will could not comply with the
formalities for a valid will4
.
1
Section 2(1)(a) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953
2
Kidwell v The Master 1983 1 509 (E)
3
Section 4(2)(c) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953
4
Jamneck, Rautenbach,The Law of Succession in South Africa.

3. Question 2.2
To remedy this, Vicky will have to approach the court in terms of 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 19535
for an order
ordering the Master to accept the will as valid and In order for a S2(3) application to be successful, she will
have to show that the testator drafted or executed the will himself. This has been strengthened in Bekker v
Naude6
, in terms of the power of condonation conferred on a court by section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953
(as amended) if the court is satisfied that the deceased intended the document to be his or her will.
Again Based on the above facts, the will could not comply with all formalities of a valid will, To remedy this,
an application has to be made to the High Court to prove that the heir who signed as a witness did not unduly
influence the testator and also seeking especially for the case of Terry who is a beneficiary who also signed
as a witness.
5
Section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953
6
Bekker v Naude 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA)

4. Bibliography
• Jamneck, Rautenbach, Paleker, Van der Linde, Wood-Bodley The Law of Succession in South
Africa 3rd
ed (2017) Oxford University Press Capetown.
• Cronje DSP & Roos A Erfregvonnis-bundel / Casebook on the Law of Succession 4th
ed (2002)
Unisa Pretoria
Contact me on; gibsmcy7@gmail.com