MODERN FREEDOM OF TESTATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: ITS APPLICATION BY THE COURTS

Authors

  • Patrick Matsemela University of South Africa

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/2520-9515/126

Keywords:

Freedom of testation, trust deed, Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, common-law limitations, statutory limitations, race, gender, testator, testatrix, impossibility

Abstract

Freedom of testation is considered to be one of the founding principles of the South African law of testate succession. Testators are given freedom to direct how their estate should devolve and free rein to dispose of their assets as they deem fit. As a result, effect must be given to the expressed wishes of the testator. Prior to 1994, such freedom could be limited only by common law or statutory law; more recently, such freedom has been tested against the Constitution of South Africa. This means that a provision in a will cannot be enforced by the courts if it is contra bonos mores, impossible or too vague, in conflict with the law, or is deemed to be unconstitutional.

Having regard to the unfair discrimination provisions of section 9(3) of the Final Constitution, can a court enforce a will or a trust deed which discriminates against potential beneficiaries on account of their race, gender, religion or disability? Will such clause pass the test of constitutionality, be justified or considered to achieve a legitimate objective? Can potential beneficiaries or anyone who has locus standi challenge the freedom of testation by relying on the freedoms and rights entrenched in the Bill of Rights? It is against this background that the paper attempts to answer these questions and explore the extent to which the Constitution has an impact on freedom of testation. The central thesis of the article is to determine whether clauses in wills or trust instruments which differentiate between different classes of beneficiary can be deemed to be valid. This is done by looking at several more recent cases that have appeared before our courts.

References

Books

Corbett, J et al. 2001. The law of succession in South Africa. 2 ed. Cape Town: Juta.

Du Toit. F. 2007. Succession law in South Africa – A historical perspective. In KGC Reid, MJ de Waal & R Zimmermann (eds) Exploring the law of succession. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748632909.003.0014

Jamneck, J (ed) et al. 2012. The law of succession in South Africa. 2 ed. Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Maisel, P & Greenbaum, L (eds). 2002. Foundations of South African law: Critical issues for law students. Durban: Butterworths.

Smith, SR. 2009. Freedom of testation: A memento of capitalist patriarchy. Unpublished LLM thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria.

Soanes, C & Stevenson, A (eds). 2009. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. 11 ed. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Journal articles

Du Toit, F. 1999. The impact of social and economic factors on freedom of testation in Roman law and Roman-Dutch law Stell LR 232–243.

Du Toit, F. 2000. The limits imposed upon freedom of testation by the boni mores: Lessons from common law and civil law (continental) legal systems. Stell LR 358–384.

Du Toit, F. 2001. The constitutionally bound dead hand? The impact of constitutional rights and principles on freedom of testation in South African law. Stell LR 222–257.

Hahlo, HR. 1950. Jewish faith and race clauses in wills. SALJ 231–244.

Hahlo, HR. 1958. Aronson v Estate Hart revisited. SALJ 152–154.

Hahlo, HR. 1959. The case against freedom of testation. SALJ 435–447.

Joubert, CP. 1968. Jewish faith and race clauses in Roman-Dutch law. SALJ 402–420.

Modiri, JM. 2013. Race as/and the trace of the ghost: Jurisprudential escapism, horizontal anxiety and the right to be racist in BOE Trust Limited. PER 583–616.

Schoeman-Malan, MC. 2007. Recent developments regarding South African common and customary law of succession. PER 107–139.

Downloads

Published

2015-07-29

How to Cite

Matsemela, Patrick. 2015. “MODERN FREEDOM OF TESTATION IN SOUTH AFRICA: ITS APPLICATION BY THE COURTS”. Journal of Law, Society and Development 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.25159/2520-9515/126.

Issue

Section

Articles
Received 2015-07-29
Accepted 2015-07-29
Published 2015-07-29