|
In ''Blom and Another v Brown and Others'', the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed an appeal by Nadine Blom (born Brown) and her sister Elmari Brown, the children of Alfred Samuel Brown (the deceased), against a judgment of the North Gauteng High Court, where Ismail AJ had held that the first respondent, Cecilia Brown, whom the deceased had married after his divorce from the mother of the appellants, was entitled to receive the benefits reserved to her by the will of the deceased. == Facts == Prior to travelling on a work-related assignment, the deceased asked to see his first will, in terms of which he had left to the first respondent his entire estate. As this will could not be located, he decided to dictate a second will, in the presence of witnesses, which the first respondent wrote out in her own handwriting. He read through the will, which revoked all his previous wills, and signed it. While away on that assignment the deceased met his death. When the second, handwritten will was lodged with the Master, the first respondent was informed that, in terms of section 4A of the Wills Act,〔Act 7 of 1953.〕 she was disqualified from benefitting under the will. Section 4A(1) disqualifies, ''inter alia'', a person who writes out the will of another in his or her own handwriting from receiving any benefit under the will. The first respondent applied, without notice to the appellants, to the Johannesburg High Court for an order that she was entitled to benefit from the will. In the high court, Pretorius AJ agreed and granted her the relief that she had sought. Once the appellants came to learn of that order, they applied for its rescission. Ismail AJ, who heard the rescission application, dismissed it with costs, essentially because he was satisfied that Pretorius AJ was correct. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Blom v Brown」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|