Jacobs and Another v Adams and Another (2024-127653) [2025] ZAGPJHC 860 (24 August 2025)

Case Note

Jacobs, Kay Priscilla N.O. v Adams, Selwyn and The Master of the High Court JHB
Case No: 2024-127653
Judgment Date: 24 August 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding the interpretation of the term "parent" under the Intestate Succession Act. The judgment addresses the legal status of a biological parent who has been absent from a child's life and explores the concept of unworthiness to inherit, which may influence future cases involving intestate succession and parental rights.

Cases Cited

• Wilsnach NO v TM and Others 2021 (3) SA 568 (GP)
• Pillay & Others v Nagan & Others 2000 (1) SA 410 (D)
• Kedibone v obo MK & another v Road Accident Fund [2021] 3 All SA 544 (GJ)
• Bouwer obo MG v Road Accident Fund 2021 (5) SA 233 (GP)
• Smit v The Master, Western Cape [2022] 4 All SA (WCC)
• Danielz NO v De Wet 2009 (6) SA 42 (C)

Legislation Cited

• Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987
• Children’s Act 38 of 2005

Rules of Court Cited

• None specified in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The case involves an application by Kay Priscilla Jacobs, the executrix of her late son Ivan's estate, seeking a declaration that Ivan's father, Selwyn Adams, is not a parent under the Intestate Succession Act. The court ultimately ruled that Adams is unworthy to inherit from Ivan's estate due to his complete absence and neglect throughout Ivan's life.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed include the interpretation of the term "parent" under the Intestate Succession Act, the application of the doctrine of unworthiness, and the implications of parental rights as defined by the Children’s Act.

Held

The court held that Selwyn Adams is declared unworthy to inherit from the estate of the late Ivan Jacobs, thereby affirming Jacobs' position as the sole parent for the purposes of intestate succession.

THE FACTS

Kay Priscilla Jacobs and Selwyn Adams had a brief relationship resulting in the birth of their son, Ivan. Adams showed minimal interest in Ivan's life, providing sporadic maintenance payments and visiting him only once in the hospital when he was one year old. For the next 29 years, Adams was absent, and Jacobs raised Ivan with the support of her family. Upon Ivan's death from COVID-19, Jacobs sought to declare Adams unworthy to inherit from Ivan's estate, which was valued at R716,070.24.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide whether Adams could be considered a parent under the Intestate Succession Act despite his absence and neglect. Additionally, the court examined whether the doctrine of unworthiness could be applied to exclude Adams from inheriting Ivan's estate.

ANALYSIS

The court analyzed the definitions of "parent" under the Intestate Succession Act and the Children’s Act, emphasizing that the latter focuses on parental rights and responsibilities, while the former is concerned with the distribution of an estate. The court found that the term "parent" in the Intestate Succession Act should not be interpreted normatively based on the parent’s conduct. Instead, it should be based on biological relationships. The court also discussed the doctrine of unworthiness, concluding that Adams' complete abandonment of Ivan constituted grounds for declaring him unworthy to inherit.

REMEDY

The court ordered that Selwyn Adams is declared unworthy to inherit from the estate of the late Ivan Jacobs. The application was dismissed in all other respects, and costs were to be borne by Ivan's estate.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established that the term "parent" under the Intestate Succession Act is not subject to normative assessments of conduct. It affirmed the applicability of the doctrine of unworthiness in cases of complete abandonment and neglect, allowing the court to exclude a biological parent from inheriting based on their failure to fulfill parental responsibilities.