Case Law[2022] ZAGPPHC 339South Africa
S.J.R v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another (54184/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 339 (6 May 2022)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
6 May 2022
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 339
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## S.J.R v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another (54184/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 339 (6 May 2022)
S.J.R v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another (54184/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 339 (6 May 2022)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2022_339.html
sino date 6 May 2022
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
CASE
NO
: 54184/2021
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES:
NO
REVISED:
YES
DATE:
06 MAY 2022
In the matter between:
S[....]1
J[....]
R[....]
Applicant
and
THE
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
First Respondent
C[....]
S[....]2 B[....]
N.O.
Second Respondent
(In her capacity as
guardian of the Late
A[....] R[....]’s
biological minor child)
JUDGMENT
JANSE VAN
NIEUWENHUIZEN J:
1.
This application emanates from the
untimely death of A[....] R[....] (“the deceased”) on 8
March 2021.
2.
The applicant is the mother of the deceased
and the second respondent was at the time of the deceased’s
death in, what seems,
like a rather acrimonious relationship with the
deceased.
3.
From the relationship between the deceased
and the second respondent one minor child, Ané was born on 22
February 2018.
Relief
4.
The applicant brought the application in
terms of the provisions of
section 2(3)
of the
Wills Act, 7 of 1953
,
seeking an order that a copy of the deceased’s Will dated 13
July 2010, be accepted by the first respondent as the last
will and
testament of the deceased.
5.
Notwithstanding certain suspicions raised
by the second respondent in respect of the validity of the Will, Ms
Ferreira, counsel
for the second respondent, correctly conceded
during the hearing of the application that the averments in the
founding affidavit
justifies the order prayed for by the applicant.
6.
In the result, I issued an order as prayed
for in prayer 2 of the Notice of Motion and reserved judgment in
respect of the issue
of costs.
Costs
7.
Although costs normally follow the result,
the second respondent is of the view that her opposition to the
application was justified
and that she should not be liable for the
costs.
8.
Notwithstanding the clear evidence
contained in the founding affidavit that the copy of the deceased’s
Will dated 13 July
2010 is indeed his last Will and Testament, the
second respondent filed an opposing affidavit consisting of 35 pages.
The opposing
affidavit contains mainly irrelevant material and deals
almost exclusively with the battle between the applicant and second
respondent
for the appointment of an executor to the late estate of
the deceased.
9.
The only issue of some relevance raised by
the second respondent in her opposing affidavit is the existence of
certain letters written
by the deceased shortly before he committed
suicide.
10.
A copy of the letter written to the second
applicant was provided to her. Save to say that the letter casts the
second respondent
in the most unflattering light, I do not deem it
necessary to repeat the contents herein. One thing that is patently
clear from
the letter is that the deceased did not want the second
respondent to lay her hands on any part of the assets in his late
estate.
11.
The applicant stated emphatically in her
founding affidavit that the other letters were written to third
parties and had nothing
to do with the administration of the
deceased’s estate. In other words, the letters had no bearing
on the last Will and Testament
of the deceased, being the only
subject matter of the application.
12.
Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the
second respondent deemed the applicant’s refusal to make the
other letters available as
“
suspicious”
.
If one has regard to the contents of the letter the deceased had
written to the second applicant, it is not clear what the second
respondent attempted to achieve by insisting to have sight of the
contents of the other letters.
13.
In order to remove the second respondent’s
unsubstantiated and uncalled for “
suspicion”
,
the applicant filed a supplementary affidavit on 7 March 2022 and
attached the letters thereto.
14.
There are two further letters, one to the
applicant and one to a certain Brendan, which appears to be a work
colleague of the deceased.
The letters do not pertain to the
deceased’s last Will and Testament at all. To the contrary they
are personal in nature
and creates a heart wrenching picture of a
desperate person who has lost all hope in life.
15.
Bearing in mind the relief claimed by the
applicant, I consider the manner in which the second respondent chose
to oppose the application
as unreasonable and insensitive. There were
simply no facts to justify the opposition to the relief claimed by
the applicant.
16.
In the premises, I could find no reason to
deviate from the normal cost order and find that the second applicant
should be liable
for the costs of the application.
ORDER
The following order is
made:
1.
The second respondent is ordered to pay the
costs of the application.
N.
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
DATE
OPPOSED MOTION APPLICATION HEARD PER COVID19 DIRECTIVES
:
28
April 2022
DATE
DELIVERED PER COVID19 DIRECTIVES:
6
May 2022
APPEARANCES
Counsel
for the applicant
Advocate Z Schoeman
Instructed
by:
Steynberg Law Inc.
Counsel
for the second respondent:
Advocate R Ferreira
Instructed
by:
Loots Basson Attorneys Inc
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Nkobane v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Others (62377/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 717 (18 July 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 717High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Ngoasheng v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Others (033476/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1174 (4 November 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 1174High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Another v Firstrand Bank Limited (Leave to Appeal) (2022-035973) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1879 (6 November 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1879High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
De Bruyn v Master of the High Court, Pretoria and Others (66520/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 263 (21 April 2022)
[2022] ZAGPPHC 263High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar
Ex Parte Master of the High Court, Gauteng Division (132182/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 797 (13 August 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 797High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)98% similar