Section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 : a retrospective and critical appraisal of some unresolved issues
Linda Schoeman-Malan, Francois du Toit, Anton Van der Linde, James Faber
Abstract
Open-access reader
Linda Schoeman-Malan, Francois du Toit, Anton Van der Linde, James Faber
Abstract
Open-access reader
This article traces the history of s 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 – the Act’s \nso-called ‘condonation provision’. It examines the reasons for the legislature’s \nintroduction of a rescue provision in regard to formally irregular wills and \namendments of wills, and surveys the manner in which South African courts \nhave engaged with testamentary condonation to date. The article pays \nparticular attention to three matters regarding s 2(3) that still pose challenges to \ncourts in their engagement with testamentary rescue: the precise ambit of the \ncondonation provision’s document requirement; some difficulties associated \nwith the subsection’s intention requirement; and the question whether the \nsubsection demands substantial compliance with execution and/or amendment \nformalities before condonation can occur. The authors submit that these \nunresolved matters require further legislative attention.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
This article traces the history of s 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 – the Act’s \nso-called ‘condonation provision’. It examines the reasons for the legislature’s \nintroduction of a rescue provision in regard to formally irregular wills and \namendments of wills, and surveys the manner in which South African courts \nhave engaged with testamentary condonation to date. The article pays \nparticular attention to three matters regarding s 2(3) that still pose challenges to \ncourts in their engagement with testamentary rescue: the precise ambit of the \ncondonation provision’s document requirement; some difficulties associated \nwith the subsection’s intention requirement; and the question whether the \nsubsection demands substantial compliance with execution and/or amendment \nformalities before condonation can occur. The authors submit that these \nunresolved matters require further legislative attention.
Key concepts: Testamentary trust, Legislative history, Legislature, Law, Section (typography), Settlor, Compliance (psychology), Political science