Letsekga v The Master: Notes of changes that the test intends to make to his will in the future, does not justify revoking part of the will. Henwick v The Master: Sec 2A was refused, because there was insufficient proof test wished to revoke his will, rather instructions from his wife. Pause for reflection pg 93. Sec 2A cannot be used to give legal effect to an oral revocation with relation to Sec 2A (a) + (b). Will a copy of the test’s will suffice? Webster v The Master: Test had made changes on a copy of his will to show his attorney how to change original. Sec 2A(a): cannot be revoked if chang3esmade on copy, not original. Sec 2A(b): can be revoked according to Sec 2A(b). Marais v The Master (study) Court interpreting the common law requirement for the revocation of wills, treated acts of symbolic destruction carried out on a copy of the will as sufficient to revoke a will, because they showed what the test would have done to his original will, had it been in his possession. Courts have more leeway when they follow common law rules, than the statutory provisions. Stature, a “will” is : original and not the copy, referred to in Sec 2A (a) + (b). Study Oliver case pg 94 and 95 STUDY UNIT 7 CAPACITY TO INHERIT PERSONS CAPABLE OF INHERITING: NATURAL PERSONS Every natural person is capable of acquiring a vested right to an inheritance. Don’t confuse vested right with right to enjoy inheritance. MAJOR BENEFICIARY WITH SOUND MIND WITH LEGAL STANDING: A major, of sound mind, who is not insolvent and does not repudiate an inheritance will acquire a vested right to an unconditional inheritance and exercise unrestricted enjoyment of the inheritance. MINOR BENEFICIARY: Has capacity to inherit, but ability to enjoy inheritance is restricted. Inherited property will be administered for the benefit of the minor by the minor’s guardian, with the office of the Master of HC exercising supervisory function.
If Sec 2C of Wills Act apply, the legacy will be substituted ex lege and the legacy will not fails. LEGATEE REPUDIATES THE LEGACY: If legatee repudiates and substitute not mentioned, and if Sec 2C does not apply, the legacy will fall into the residue of the estate to be shared by residuary heirs. LEGATEE IS INCAPABLE OF INHERITING: Ex: because he murdered test, end neither substitution nor accrual is poosible, the legacy will fall into residue of estate. BEQUEATHED OBJECT IS DESTROYED: Object is destroyed and there is nothing which can be inherited, it is assumed that the test revoked the bequest. TEST’S ESTAE IS INSOLVENT: There can be no transfer of legacies to the legatees, because all the assets of the estate must be used to repay the creditors of the estate. TIME CLAUSES: Absolute bequests may be made with a time clause or term. Such time clause may be suspensive or terminative. Time Clause If a bequest is subject to a time clause, it is subject to an event that will certainly happen in the future, although it may be certain or uncertain when it will arrive. Suspensive Time Clause A bequest subject to a suspensive time clause is a bequest from which the beneficiary will receive the benefit only at a certain future time. A bequest where the beneficiary will have to wait until a certain time to receive the benefit. Resolutive (terminative) time clause A bequest subject to a resolutive time clause is one where the beneficiary’s rights are terminated when a certain time arrives. A beneficiary’s already established rights terminate when a certain time arrives. CONDITIONAL BEQUESTS: Condit Beq depends on a future event which is uncertain in the sense that it may / may not occur. Condit must be clear and possible, legal and not contra bonos mores. If condition is one of above, it is void and pro non scripto: condition falls away and bequest becomes unconditional. 2 Conditions: Resolutive and Suspensive.