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 |
Citation(s) | [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.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Africa since the Civil Union Act, 2006 came into force on 30 November 2006. The decision of the Constitutional Court in the case of Minister of Home Affairs v Fourie on 1 December 2005 extended the common-law definition of marriage to include same-sex spouses—as the Constitution of South Africa guarantees equal protection before the law to all citizens regardless of sexual orientation—and gave Parliament one year to rectify the inequality in the marriage statutes. On 14 November 2006, the National Assembly passed a law allowing same-sex couples to legally solemnise their union 229 to 41, which was subsequently approved by the National Council of Provinces on 28 November in a 36 to 11 vote, and the law came into effect two days later.
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.
A will contest, in the law of property, is a formal objection raised against the validity of a will, based on the contention that the will does not reflect the actual intent of the testator or that the will is otherwise invalid. Will contests generally focus on the assertion that the testator lacked testamentary capacity, was operating under an insane delusion, or was subject to undue influence or fraud. A will may be challenged in its entirety or in part.
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.
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.
In Van Zyl v Esterhuyse, an important case in the law of succession in South Africa, 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
Testate succession exists under the law of succession in South Africa.
The De Hoop Dam is a gravity dam on the Steelpoort River, near Burgersfort, Limpopo, South Africa. Its purpose is to enable the extraction of rich mineral deposits in the eastern Limpopo province, and to supply water to towns, industries and communities in the Sekhukhune district, where service delivery was of a poor standard.
Nilon Limited v Royal Westminster Investments S.A.[2015] UKPC 2, P.C. is a leading case of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the right of a party to seek rectification of a company's share register, and the use of "anchor defendants". The case also included various obiter comments about the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
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.
A delinquent director is a term used under Section 162 of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008, which allows shareholders and other stakeholders to apply to the court to declare a director of a company delinquent.
Alexander John Milne 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.
Ashton Schippers is a South African judge of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Before his elevation to that court in June 2018, he served in the Western Cape High Court from February 2013 to May 2018. He was formerly an advocate in Cape Town, where he took silk in 2004 and where he was chairperson of the bar council between 2004 and 2006.
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.