Van Zyl v Esterhuyse NO en Andere

JurisdictionSouth Africa
Citation1985 (4) SA 726 (C)

Van Zyl v Esterhuyse NO en Andere
1985 (4) SA 726 (C)

1985 (4) SA p726


Citation

1985 (4) SA 726 (C)

Court

Kaapse Provinsiale Afdeling

Judge

Van Heerden R en Burger R

Heard

September 24, 1984

Judgment

February 14, 1985

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

C Testament — Rektifikasie van — Deur invoeging van woorde — Gesamentlike testament wat testateurs se kinders as erfgename aangestel het onderworpe aan 'n kontantlegaat aan twee familielede wat ook as voogde van testateurs se kinders aangestel is — Oorlewende eggenoot het aangevoer dat testament verkeerd opgestel is en dat dit haar en haar D oorlede man se bedoeling was dat die langslewende van hulle die enigste erfgenaam sou wees en dat die kinders en familielede slegs sou erf indien hulle twee gelyktydig sou sterf — Hof het aanvaar dat dit die bedoeling was — Bevel uitgereik dat die testament gerektifiseer word deur die invoeging van woorde waardeur die aanstelling van die kinders as erfgename en die familielede as legate en die aanstelling van E laasgenoemde as voogde slegs voorwaardelik sou wees op die gelyktydige dood van die testateurs.

Headnote : Kopnota

Die applikante het aansoek gedoen om die rektifikasie van 'n gesamentlike testament onderteken deur haar en haar oorlede man. Die testament het haar as die enigste erfgenaam aangestel onderworpe aan die F voorwaardes (a) dat 'n kontantlegaat van R10 000 aan mnr en mev L bemaak word; (b) dat die res van die boedel aan die testateurs se kinders bemaak word; en (c ) dat mnr en mev L as voogde van die testateurs se kinders aangestel word. Die Meester was van mening dat die applikante slegs sou erf indien die bemaking aan mnr en mev L en die kinders sou faal. Die applikante het egter aangevoer dat die testament deur 'n G bank-amptenaar opgestel is en dat sy en haar man dit haastig en sonder leiding geteken het. Sy het getuig dat hulle bedoeling was dat die langslewende van hulle die hele boedel sou erf en dat hulle kinders slegs sou erf indien hulle gelyktydig sou sterf. Die applikante se getuienis in hierdie verband is deur die bank-amptenaar bevestig. Die kurator ad litem aangestel om die belange van die kinders te beskerm het aangevoer dat om die testament te rektifiseer, invoegings in die testament gemaak moes word en dat rektifikasie slegs moontlik was by H wyse van die deurhaling van woorde en artikels. Die Hof het die applikante se getuienis aanvaar en die reg betreffende die rektifikasie van kontrakte en testamente in die Romeinse- en Romeins-Hollandse reg ontleed en tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat in laasgenoemde daar duidelike beginsels was om ten spyte van foute in 'n testament die werklike bedoeling van die testateur vas te stel. Die Hof het gevolglik beslis dat die testament gerektifiseer moes word deur die invoeging van I woorde in terme waarvan die aanstelling van die kinders erfgename, die bemaking aan mnr en mev L en die aanstelling van laasgenoemde as voogde slegs voorwaardelik sou wees op die gelyktydige dood van die testateurs.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Will — Rectification of — By insertion of words — Joint will appointing testators' children as heirs subject to a cash bequest to two family members who were also appointed as guardians of the children — Surviving spouse contending that the will had been incorrectly drawn and J that her and her husband's intention was

1985 (4) SA p727

A that the surviving spouse would be the sole heir and that the children and family members would only inherit in the event of their dying simultaneously — Court accepting that this was the intention — Order for rectification of the will granted whereby the appointment of the children as heirs and the family members as legatees and the appointment of the latter as guardians was conditional upon the simultaneous death of the testators. B

Headnote : Kopnota

The applicant applied for the rectification of a joint will executed by herself and her deceased husband. The will appointed her as the sole heir subject to the conditions: (a) that a cash bequest of R10 000 was made to Mr and Mrs L; (b) that the rest of the estate was bequeathed to the testators' children; and (c) that Mr and Mrs L were appointed guardians of the children. The Master was of the opinion that the applicant would only inherit if the bequest to Mr and Mrs L and the C children failed. The applicant submitted that the will had been drawn by a bank official and that she and her husband had signed it hastily and without guidance. She testified that their intention was that the survivor of them would inherit the whole estate and that their children would only inherit in the event of their dying simultaneously. The applicant's evidence in this regard was confirmed by the bank official. The curator ad litem appointed to protect the children's interest submitted that in order to rectify the will insertions had to be made D and that rectification was only possible by way of deletion of words and clauses. The Court accepted the applicant's evidence and analysed the law regarding the rectification of contracts and wills in the Roman- and Roman-Dutch law and came to the conclusion that in the latter there were clear principles regarding the ascertainment of the intention of the testator despite mistakes in the will. The Court accordingly held that E the will had to be rectified by the insertion of words which made the appointment of the children as heirs, the bequest to Mr and Mrs L and the appointment of the latter as guardians conditional upon the simultaneous death of the testators.

Case Information

Aansoek om rektifikasie van 'n testament. Die feite blyk uit die uitspraak.

G R de M Hofmeyr SC (bygestaan deur J E Knoll namens die applikante.

W G Thring as kurator ad litem. G

Cur ad vult.

Postea (February 14).

Judgment

Burger R:

Die applikante, mev Van Zyl, en haar oorlede eggenoot het op 5 H Augustus 1982 beide 'n testament onderteken. Haar man is op 25 September 1982 oorlede. Die tersake bepalings van die betrokke testament is die volgende:

"3.

Ek benoem en stel hiermee aan my eggenote, Mabel Rosemarie (gebore Goldseller) as die enigste erfgenaam van my gehele boedel, onderhewig egter aan die bepalings hierinlater vervat onder I klousule 4.

4.

Ek bemaak my gehele boedel as volg:

4.1

'n Kontantlegaat van R10 000 aan my swaer, mnr C J Liebenberg en my skoonsuster, mev J S Liebenberg;

4.2

Die restant van my boedel aan my kinders gebore uit die bestaande huwelik onderhewig aan die volgende voorwaardes:

4.2.1

Dat die erfenis van enige erfgenaam onder die ouderdom van 21 jaar onder beheer geplaas word van my administrateur wat dit in trust moet hou en alle J kontantfondse en opbrengs van bates belê

1985 (4) SA p728

Burger R

A teen die beste rentekoers by erkende en gevestigde finansiële instellings en/of algemene- en handelsbanke en/of bougenootskappe en/of distriksbank en/of in belastingvrye beleggings, in enige verhouding volgens sy uitsluitlike diskresie en goeddunke met die reg om sodanige beleggings op te roep en te herbelê op die wyse soos hierin bepaal.

6.

B Ek benoem en stel hiermee aan my swaer en skoonsuster, naamlik mnr C J Liebenberg en mev J S Liebenberg as die voogde oor my minderjarige kinders en stel hulle gesamentlik en afsonderlik vry van alle verpligting om sekuriteit aan die Meester van die Hooggeregshof te verskaf.

7.

Indien my gesegde eggenoot voor my of gelyktydig met my of binne 30 dae na my te sterwe kom sonder om wettige afstammelinge na te laat wat kragtens klousule 4.2 kan erf, C dan bemaak ek my boedel in gelyke dele aan my moeder en skoonmoeder."

Volgens die Weesheer word die testament vertolk as 'n bemaking van R10 000 aan mnr en mev Liebenberg en die restant as 'n bemaking aan hulle kinders in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Will NO v the Master and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...substitution of words and it is illogical to restrict rectification to the deletion of words only. Van Zyl v Esterhuyze NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C) approved and Extrinsic evidence of a testator's intention is admissible to rectify a F will. This would, of course, include evidence of th......
  • Hotz NO v Goodman NO
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...the deletion or the insertion of words. B The Court in Will's case agreed with the decision in Van Zyl v Esterhuyse NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C) (a judgment of Burger J and Van Heerden J) which followed the reasoning in the decisions of other Divisions of the Supreme Court, including Ex......
  • Henriques v Giles NO
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...D Van Wetten and Another v Bosch and Others 2004 (1) SA 348 (SCA) ([2003] 4 All SA 442): referred to Van Zyl v Esterhuyse NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C): referred Will NO v The Master and Others 1991 (1) SA 206 (C): referred to. Canada E Re McDermid Estate (1994) 5 ETR (2d) 238 (Sask QB) ......
  • Will NO v the Master and Others
    • South Africa
    • Cape Provincial Division
    • 24 October 1989
    ...in Welldon v Andrews and Others (supra at 45B - C). They have also been followed in this Division in Van Zyl v Esterhuyze NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C) where Burger J and Van B Heerden J concluded that the Court was not bound by Stephen's case and that the approach by Corbett J was too r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Will NO v the Master and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...substitution of words and it is illogical to restrict rectification to the deletion of words only. Van Zyl v Esterhuyze NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C) approved and Extrinsic evidence of a testator's intention is admissible to rectify a F will. This would, of course, include evidence of th......
  • Hotz NO v Goodman NO
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...the deletion or the insertion of words. B The Court in Will's case agreed with the decision in Van Zyl v Esterhuyse NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C) (a judgment of Burger J and Van Heerden J) which followed the reasoning in the decisions of other Divisions of the Supreme Court, including Ex......
  • Henriques v Giles NO
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...D Van Wetten and Another v Bosch and Others 2004 (1) SA 348 (SCA) ([2003] 4 All SA 442): referred to Van Zyl v Esterhuyse NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C): referred Will NO v The Master and Others 1991 (1) SA 206 (C): referred to. Canada E Re McDermid Estate (1994) 5 ETR (2d) 238 (Sask QB) ......
  • Will NO v the Master and Others
    • South Africa
    • Cape Provincial Division
    • 24 October 1989
    ...in Welldon v Andrews and Others (supra at 45B - C). They have also been followed in this Division in Van Zyl v Esterhuyze NO en Andere 1985 (4) SA 726 (C) where Burger J and Van B Heerden J concluded that the Court was not bound by Stephen's case and that the approach by Corbett J was too r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT