Morare and Another v Morare and Others (2025/197147) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1173 (19 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: Morare v Morare and Others
Citation: [2025] ZAGPJHC 197147
Date: 19 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significance in family law and estate management in South Africa, particularly regarding the administration of deceased estates and the requirements for obtaining interim interdicts. The court's ruling not only clarifies the legal standards regarding urgency and the protection of estate assets during disputes but also underscores the importance of procedural decorum in legal proceedings. Given the implications of its rulings on the validity of testamentary documents, it serves as a reference point for both legal practitioners and individuals engaged in estate disputes.

Moreover, the case involved critical considerations regarding the rights of beneficiaries under contested wills, which poses wider ramifications for similar cases within the jurisdiction of South Africa. As such, the legal principles established in this matter will be of interest to other judges and practitioners.

Cases Cited

1. Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221
2. Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W)
3. Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another 1977 (4) SA 135 (W)
4. LF Boshoff Investments (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town Municipality 1969 (2) SA 256 (C)
5. Prokureursorde van Transvaal v Kleynhans 1995 (1) SA 839 (T)
6. General Council of the Bar of South Africa v Geach and Others 2013 (2) SA 52 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014

Rules of Court Cited

• Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 6(12)

HEADNOTE

Summary

In this urgent application, the court addressed the necessity of protecting the interests of the applicants, who claim to be beneficiaries under a disputed will of the deceased Simon Morare. The applicants sought interim interdictory relief to prevent the respondents from registering any transactions concerning the deceased estate while awaiting the resolution of Part B of the proceedings. The court found merit in the application, concluding that the circumstances justified urgency, and granted the sought-after relief based on established legal principles.

Key Issues

The core legal issues involved:

1. Determining whether the application meets the criteria for urgency as per the Uniform Rules of Court.
2. Assessing whether the applicants established a prima facie right to justify interim interdictory relief.
3. Evaluating the potential irreparable harm that the applicants would suffer if the relief was not granted.

Held

The court held that the application was urgent and that the applicants demonstrated a prima facie right as well as a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm. The balance of convenience favored the granting of the interdict, and there was no alternative remedy available to the applicants. The court interdicted proceedings that would lead to the registration or transfer of the disputed property pending the outcome of Part B of the matter.

THE FACTS

The application was brought by Pamela and Sannah Morare, who contested the appointment of Peggy Morare as the executrix of the estate of the late Simon Morare. The applicants claimed that they were beneficiaries under a will that was in dispute, asserting that Peggy intended to sell the estate's property without resolving the contested validity of the will. The facts revealed that the proposed sale posed an imminent threat to the applicants' interests in the estate.

The First Respondent opposed the urgent application, arguing that the applicants were not diligent in challenging the executorship appointment. The court had to consider not only the substantial claims of the parties regarding the will but also the potential irreversible harm that could occur before a final decision could be made regarding the estate's assets.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide on several legal questions:

1. Whether the application could be heard on an urgent basis in accordance with Rule 6(12)(a).
2. If the applicants had established the requirements for an interim interdict according to the principles set out in relevant case law.
3. How the conduct of the First Respondent’s attorney affected the proceedings and whether it warranted a referral to the Legal Practice Council.

ANALYSIS

In analyzing the urgency of the matter, the court assessed the potential for irreparable harm if the property were to be sold before the legal validity of the will was confirmed. The court noted that the alienation of the estate property would leave the applicants with no adequate legal remedy should they succeed in their claims regarding the will’s validity.

To establish a prima facie right, the court considered the existence of the testamentary documents and the claimants' status as beneficiaries. The court reasoned that even though the authenticity of the documents was contested, the applicants met the initial threshold required to establish a right, albeit one open to challenge.

The court also emphasized the balance of convenience, outlining that preserving the status quo was crucial for the applicants to avoid irreparable losses. It was recognized that sufficient grounds existed to justify the granting of the interdict based on the lack of any alternative remedies available to the parties seeking protection.

REMEDY

The court granted the applicants the interim relief they sought, interdicting the First and Second Respondents from proceeding with the registration of any transactions concerning the estate property and the finalization of the estate's administration. Furthermore, the court allowed the applicants to supplement their papers within a specified timeframe in the pursuit of resolving Part B of the application.

Additionally, the matter concerning the attorney's conduct was referred to the Legal Practice Council for further investigation in light of the unprofessional manner in which the attorney appeared in court.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment elucidates several key legal principles, notably:

1. The criteria for granting an interim interdict: necessity to show a prima facie right, apprehension of irreparable harm, balance of convenience, and absence of alternative remedies.
2. The significance of urgency in legal proceedings, especially concerning potential harm from estate management.
3. The conduct of legal practitioners in court has consequences that can undermine the administration of justice and will not be tolerated; such conduct may lead to referrals for disciplinary action under the Legal Practice Act.

The case clearly illustrates the delicate balance of interests involved in estate disputes and affirms the courts’ commitment to ensuring equitable treatment of all parties while upholding legal decorum.