Henriques v Giles | |
---|---|
Court | Supreme Court of Appeal (South Africa) |
Full case name | Henriques v Giles NO and Another; Henriques v Giles NO and Others |
Decided | 29 May 2009 |
Docket nos. | 213/08 |
Citations | [2009] ZASCA 64; 2010 (6) SA 51 (SCA) ; [2009] 4 All SA 116 (SCA) |
Case history | |
Appealed from | Giles NO and Another v Henriques and Others 2008 (4) SA 558 (C) in the High Court of South Africa, Cape of Good Hope Provincial Division |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Navsa JA, van Heerden JA, Mhlantla JA, Kroon AJA and Tshiqi AJA |
Case opinions | |
Decision by | Van Heerden JA (unanimous) |
Keywords | |
|
Henriques v Giles NO and Another; Henriques v Giles NO and Others is an important case in the South African law of succession, decided in the Supreme Court of Appeal in May 2009. It concerned the rectification of cross-signed wills. The matter was an appeal from the High Court of South Africa, where it was heard in 2007 by Judge Patricia Goliath of the Cape Town High Court.
In 1999, a husband and wife instructed their accountant to prepare their respective wills. The content of the wills differed considerably. The husband accidentally signed his wife's will; his wife accidentally signed his will. The husband died in 2004, and his wife died the following year.
On 29 May 2009, Judge of Appeal Belinda van Heerden delivered judgment on behalf of a unanimous court. In response to a request to rectify both wills, the court held that the husband's will was capable of being rectified, but the wife's will was not: the court was not satisfied that she had the requisite capacity to execute a will due to her affliction with Alzheimer's disease.
Some commentators regarded the decision and its reasoning as "confusing". [1] [2]
A will and testament is a legal document that expresses a person's (testator) wishes as to how their property (estate) is to be distributed after their death and as to which person (executor) is to manage the property until its final distribution. For the distribution (devolution) of property not determined by a will, see inheritance and intestacy.
Wills have a lengthy history.
A holographic will, or olographic testament, is a will and testament which is a holographic document, meaning that it has been entirely handwritten and signed by the testator. Holographic wills have been treated differently by different jurisdictions throughout history. For example, some jurisdictions historically required that a holographic will had to be signed by witnesses attesting to the validity of the testator's signature and intent.
Giles Sutherland Rich was an associate judge of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (CCPA) and later on was a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), and had enormous impact on patent law. He was the first patent attorney appointed to any federal court since Benjamin Robbins Curtis was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1851.
This is a timeline of notable events in the history of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in South Africa.
Volks NO v Robinson and Others is an important decision in South African family law and law of succession. In a majority judgment written by Justice Thembile Skweyiya, the Constitutional Court of South Africa dismissed a challenge to the constitutionality of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990. The court held that it is not discriminatory for the Act to exclude the survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protections it extends to the survivors of legal marriages. Married couples are entitled to claim maintenance from their deceased spouse's estate because the institution of marriage creates unique reciprocal duties of support which do not exist between permanent life partners.
In Ex Parte Estate Davies, an important case in South African succession law, the testator bequeathed £2000 in his will to a person who was not named in the will itself, but on a document which was in a sealed envelope given to his attorney. This document was not signed by witnesses.
Smith v Parsons NO and Others is an important case in South African succession law, decided in the Supreme Court of Appeal in March 2010. It concerned the condonation of a suicide note as an amendment to the deceased's will.
Testate succession exists under the law of succession in South Africa.
Bank of Montreal v Stuart is a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada. It deals with the principle of undue influence in relation to contracts, in the particular context of dealings between spouses. Decided in 1910, the case continues to be cited in the courts in Canada and in England and Wales.
Patricia Lynette Goliath is a South African judge of the High Court of South Africa. She has been the acting Judge President of the Western Cape Division since December 2022, when John Hlophe was suspended and then impeached.
Alexander John Milne, SC was a South African judge from Natal Province. He was Judge President of the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa from 1982 to 1987. During that time, he was reputed as a liberal judge on the basis of his judgements in the Pietermaritzburg Treason Trial and other cases involving anti-apartheid protest. He joined the Natal Division in 1971, was promoted to the Appellate Division in 1988, and served on the latter bench until his death in 1993.
Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission and Another is a 2021 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa on the constitutionality of a statutory prohibition on hate speech. The court found that section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 was unconstitutional insofar as it included the vague term "hurtful" as part of the definition of prohibited hate speech.
Kylie v Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others is an important decision in South African labour law, handed down on 26 May 2010 in the Labour Appeal Court of South Africa. Writing for a unanimous court, Judge of Appeal Dennis Davis held that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 applied to sex workers and that the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration therefore had jurisdiction to hear a dispute between a sex worker and the brothel that had fired her. Although the court affirmed that sex workers' employment contracts were legally unenforceable, it held that sex workers were nonetheless protected by the labour rights granted in section 23 of the Constitution of South Africa.
Le Roux and Others v Dey is a 2011 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the South African law of delict. It was the court's first decision on alleged defamation by a minor. A majority of the court upheld the award of monetary damages to a high school vice-principal who had been defamed by three of his pupils through the publication of a digitally manipulated photo.
Mazibuko and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others is a landmark decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa concerning the content of the constitutional right of access to water. It was decided on 8 October 2009 in a unanimous judgment, the last written by Justice Kate O'Regan before her retirement.
Women's Legal Centre Trust v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is a 2022 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa concerning the legal status and regulation of Muslim marriages. The Constitutional Court declared that the Marriage Act, 1961 and Divorce Act, 1979 were unconstitutional insofar as they failed to recognise and regulate marriages solemnised in accordance with sharia and not registered as civil marriages. This failure was inconsistent with various constitutional rights in sections 9, 10, 28 and 34 of the Constitution of South Africa. The judgment was unanimous and was written by Acting Justice Pule Tlaletsi.
First National Bank of SA Limited v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services and Another; First National Bank of SA LImited v Minister of Finance is an important decision in South African property law, handed down by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 16 May 2002. The court held unanimously that section 114 of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964 was constitutionally invalid to the extent that it provided that a third party's property could be subject to lien and seizure for another person's customs debt. The matter was heard on appeal from the Cape High Court on 28 August 2001 and Justice Laurie Ackermann wrote the court's judgment.
Bwanya v Master of the High Court, Cape Town and Others is an important decision in the South African law of succession and particularly the law of intestate succession. It was decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa on 31 December 2021 with a majority judgment written by Justice Mbuyiseli Madlanga. A majority of the court upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of the Intestate Succession Act, 1981 and Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act, 1990, holding that it was unfairly discriminatory to exclude the survivors of permanent life partnerships from the protections the acts extend to the survivors of legal marriages. Bwanya therefore overturned the holding in Volks v Robinson.
Mankayi v AngloGold Ashanti Ltd is a 2011 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa in South African labour law and the South African law of delict. The court upheld the right of mineworkers to sue at common law for damages incurred due to occupational disease and occupational injury. The High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal had found that section 35(1) of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and Diseases Act, 1993 established a statutory bar to such claims, but the Constitutional Court held unanimously that the relevant provision applied only to workers who were entitled to claim for compensation under that act.