1) Written document At what stage must T have intention Aim:

 Computer file: Mc Ds  Harlow v bekker = drafting Mac Donald V Master: avoid invalidity +
 Typed, email, written: Vd Merwe v Master  Kotze v M: provisional intention; not eliminate injustice/inequality
 2 diary entries signed by T: Dikgale v Master need to be present @ drafting
only writing sufficient? No other formalities
 Van wetten v bosch: present @ drafting Personal involvement in drafting
 Back v M (“all” added to section unnecessary) - Condone if T drafted + executed
 Smith v parsons: drafted
 Ex parte Williams (T mustve reconciled will) - Other requirement: intended to be Will
 CONFIRMED IN Mc D  De reszke v maras: concurrently @
Webster v the master
 VD Merwe + Webster v M execution or drafting
 T and wife mutual will benefit each other
 Divorce, T deletes reference to wife as possible beneficiary with pencil
Drafted/ Cause to be drafted:  Give to attorney to draft new will = kids inherit everything
Draft:  Drafted prepared by T missing
 Ex Parte Williams: someone draft W + T later approve + sign  6mo later T returns with finance + wants to change will to include her
 Bekker v Naude:  attorney redrafts but missing info about finance
- Distinction between drafted + cause to be drafted
- CTBD = someone else drafts will
S2(3)  T dies next day
 Child attest 3rd will , they want will 2
- Doesn’t apply for s2(3) = eliminate possible fraud Application:
Executed Was it a doc = yes
 Raubenhiemer v Raubenhiemer: partial compliance with s2(1) Drafted by T= no = wordings clear strict interpretation of no partial execution
- Drafted by T fin advisor without 2 witnesses present Decision: 3rd will not intended to be final will
 “executed by person who has since died” Mc Ds
 confirmed in Bekker v Naude Back v the master
 T instructs attorney to draft will – minor info missing = dies before
providing info
Intention that doc be final will:
 Findings: where attorney drafted will on T instructions + T approved but
Ex parte Maurice
not executed (signed) = T intended to be final will
 T must intend doc itself to be will = if only reflects his wishes
 Emphasis that T has seen will
 Wont condone instructions to draft = not intention final will
 Condoned the doc
 Will not drafted by him, letter instructions not intended to be final.
Smith v parsons Conflicting provisions: Bekker v Naude with Webster (correct ruling)
 Suicide letter = court condoned which wasn’t intended to be will Bekker v Naude:
 Application: Doc = yes; drafted by T= Yes; final = yes  Emphasis on wording s2(3) + 2A “drafted+ cause to be drafted)
 Intention: nature of doc + surrounding circumstances  Drafted = strict meaning of personal act
 No possibility of contemplating of redrafting  T didn’t sign draft by someone else
 Explicitly needs personal relationship between t and doc
Van Wetten v Bosch  T must associate himself with will in literal sense = personal drafting =
 In light surrounding circumstances court refused this application to condone
 Intention must be present @ drafting  Additional requirement for s2(3)
 Court found: words not to be giving instructions but words of
person who made final decision
 Amendments
xLetsekga v The Master
 T had valid will
 Doc found after death in his handwriting + unsigned
 Clear doc didn’t satisfy s2(1)(b) = amendments
 No reference to his will but certain, but parts
corresponding to clauses in his will
 Court:
- T visualized redrafting his will based on his notes
- Doc NOT intended to be final distribution of assets
- It was not signed
- Original will conformed typed with all requirements
- T was business man = broad knowledge of law +
meticulous
- Would’ve seen to it that amendment complied with
act
- Court not convinced = followed Maurice ruling
- Decision = not intended to be amendment
Anderson + Wagner v the Master
 Letter to attorney: “could you make minor alternations to
my will.. could you draw up a more suitable form of the
will”
 T died before will amended
 Court:
- Doc should’ve been drafted with intention that it
served at final will/ amendment = not proved
- Mere instructions = letsekga + Maurice case
- Condonation denied
Smith v Parsons
 Q: whether suicide note constituted as amendment
of existing will
 Instructions intended to be implemented by
executor
 Not merely instructions for redrafting = knew he
was going to commit suicide
 Still intended residue to go to son ito will
 Codicil
Olivier v The Meester
 T and wife requested accountant to amend joint will
with codicil
 Spouse signed codicil but T didn’t
 Codicil = clause in will be deleted + replaced clause in C
 Court:
- Stressed NB of compliance with formalities s2(1)(b)
- Required substantial compliance with certain
formalities and that T should drafted doc or made
amendment himself
Ferrington v Key
Filling in blank space = not amendment
 Uys v Uys:
 Original will lost = can copy be declared will?
 Asministration of estates act was amended =
Master can accept duplicate original will in spite
of presumption that will has been revoked if
original cant be found
 One needs to convince court on balance of probs
that didn’t intent to revoke
Tacit Revocation: Pienaar v the Master
 Left behind 2 wills
 Distributed his assets differently in later 1
 Court: correct to read wills together and that
there had been tacit partial R to extent
where wills differ
 Where differ = apply latter
TR: Le roux v le roux
 T revoked 2nd will under wrong assumption
that 1st will revive automatically
 2nd will remained last will
 “doctrine of dependent relative revocation”
- not a statement of legal rules + principles
- method of reasoning
- if facts establish that T destroyed will
through inadvertence/ under belief that
it was invalid or already had been
revoked = act destruction not
accompanied by any animus revocandi
Sansole v Ncube
 T married to X, will in her favour , divroce
 Asks for will back from attonery = copy was sent
 T destroyed copy and dies
REVOCATION Webster v The Master
 T with pencil deleted on COPY of joint wil, name
of wife as beneficiary to them being
Moses v Abinader married/mutually benefiting each other
minority
 T instructed attornery to draft need will which
Re-execution only possibility:
only benefited kids
 Revoked his 1st will = lost legal force
 T disappears and reappears with fiancé who he
 Must be re-executed (to acquire legal force) wants to include (leaves out certain details of
 Cannot simply refer to it in reviving doc her)
 Incorporation by reference = not part SA law  T died before new draft prepared
Majority:  Chidlred want to bring s2(3) = condone old will
 Formalities not need to be complied with - Failed 2 reasons
again  Alternative application s2A
 Can have reviving doc, if properly executed - S2A(a) = NO because not on original
with 2 competent witnesses - S2A(b) = Yes, constituted act performed by T
 Not considered incorporation by reference = indicating intention to revoke will =
that’s not properly executed - s4A granted = effect dies intestate (children
 Effect of R is NOT that revoked will no longer inherit any case)
properly executed = it only lost legal force
Wessels v The Master (intention to revive didn’t emerge clearly from R doc)
- Opportunity to reconsider decicion in moses case
- T and wife had executed joint will
- In clause 2 and 3 will contained mainly provisions for distribution of assets if husband were
to die first.
- Clause 8 provision if wife died first
- Wife died first and husband only heir
- After wife death T executed 3 codicils which referred to joint will as his will]court found
that there was no massing and that will had lapsed upon wife death
Questions:
a) Was there a revival of the lapsed will by the codicils?
b) Could incorporation by reference possibly have occurred
 Court accepted view of schreiner as correct!
 Found will lapsed upon death of first dying
 Original will did still exist, had been properly executed and there was a reviving doc (the
codicil0 but court found intention to revive will didn’t emerge clearly from rviving doc
 Daniels v de wet – causing death intentionally = not requirement for bloody hand
 Unworthiness extended to include situations based on public policy Casey v The Master
 woman hired assailants to assault her husband in order to teach him a lesson  Husband slightly under the influence + killed wife with fire
 man suffered gun shot wombs and died arm
 woman found guilty of conspiracy to assault and assault with intention to do  Court held:
grievous bodily harm a) Principle of public policy requires that bloody hand still apply
 issue: can woman benefit from life insurance policy of husband who took it out - Incapable of inheriting
with as beneficiary - Still receives ½ estate ICOP
 despite fact not found guilty of murder (or culpable homicide) + basis of PP, court b) If due to negligent driving = crossed out
disqualified her from receiving any benefit from the policy
 “ in no civilised society should a person who deliberately and in
premeditated manner planned and participated in a vicious assault, which Yassan v Yasson Pillay v Nagan:
ultimately caused the death of the deceased, benefit from the consequence - Person who steals, destroys, - Person who forged = not
of his actions even if those consequences were unforeseen” forges or damages will = crime entitled to inherit

Taylor v Pim
 Person who allowed T to lead an
immoral life/encouraged alcohol INCAPACITY TO INHERIT Matrimonial PA - Leeb v Leeb
- Court declared the murderers benefit
from the joint estate forfeited on
abuse – disqualified
basis of considerations of public
policy = person should not be
enriched by his crime
Blom v Brown
Pension Benefits
- T dictates will to wife
Makhanya v Min of Finance
- She writes down in her own handwriting
- woman found guilty of murdering
- 2 witnesses sign
husband
- wife is sole heir
- court found bloody hand rule
- t dies
expanded to disqualify woman from
findings
receiving any benefit from her
- wife is disqualified
deceased husbands pension fund that
- applies to s4A(2)(a)
were payable to his dependents
 2 daughters from 1st marriage contest
 argue 2nd wife only entitled to intestate benefit ito s4A(2)(b)
Insurance benefits = daniels de wet
 argued that s24(2)(a) for non family members and b for family
 daughters entitled to residue
court = nothing that suggests s4A(2)(a) is only for strangers
 WEBB V DAVIES - modus Du Plessis v strauss: - direct substitution + fiedi
Railway station and obligation to pay sibling  The Si Sine liberis decsserit provision coupled to a
Not suspensive condition but modus conditional fideicommissum, gives rise to a
Goes into his testate = rights vest immediately after presumption that the T tacititly appointed the
acceptance unlike condition. liberi/children as fideicommissary beneficiaries,
provided that liberi are descendants of T
Wessels v DA Wessels – modus
- T combined a Fideicommissaium with
usufruct and a modus
- Test in each case whether an obligation
exists + whether vesting rights postponed or
not
- Decided that beneficiaries may agree among
themselves that performance will take place
different way + different time than specified
in will
Contents of will