• Law Reports
  • Morare and Another v Morare and Others (2025/197147) …

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

60 Reportability
Trusts and Estates
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Interdict — Interim interdict — Urgent application for interdict pending determination of validity of deceased’s Will — Applicants sought to prevent registration of property transfer and finalisation of estate administration — Court found prima facie right established based on disputed testamentary documents — Irreparable harm apprehended if property alienated — Balance of convenience favoured Applicants — Application declared urgent and interim interdict granted to preserve status quo pending resolution of Part B.

Comprehensive Summary

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.

SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG


Case Number: 2025-197147


(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
19 November 2025


In the matter between:


PAMELA MORARE First Applicant


SANNAH MORARE Second Applicant


and


PEGGY MORARE First
Respondent

(In her capacity as an Executrix in the Estate Late Simon Morare, Estate No. 0[…])

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, JOHANNESBURG Second Respondent

THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, JOHANNESBURG Third
Respondent

HILDA MORARE Fourth
Respondent

Page | 2

JUDGMENT
NTHAMBELENI, AJ

Introduction
[1] This is an urgent application brought by the First and Second Applicants (“the
Applicants”) seeking interim interdictory relief pending the finalisation of Part B
of these proceedings. In Part B, the a pplicants seek an order declaring one of
two testamentary documents lodged with the Master of the High Court as the
last valid Will of the late Simon Morare (“the deceased”).
[2] The Applicants seek the following interim relief:
(a) Pending the determination of Part B, the First to Third Respondents are
interdicted from registering any transaction or transfer of ownership in respect
of the immovable property known as Erf 5[…] P[…] Zone 5, Johannesburg (“the
property”) in the Deeds Registry.
(b) Pending the determination of Part B, the First and Second Respondents are
interdicted from finalising or taking any steps towards the finalisation of the
administration of the deceased estate.
(c) Leave is granted to the Applicants to supplement their papers within Fifteen
(15) days in pursuit of Part B of this application.
(d) Costs of this application.
Urgency
[3] The First Respondent opposes the relief and argues that the matter is not
urgent. It is contended that the Applicants were aware of her appointment as
Executrix in early 2024 and failed to challenge such appointment timeously.
[4] Rule 6(12)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court permits the Court to dispense with
forms and service ordinarily required and to dispose of a matter urgently where
the circumstances so justify. The test for urgency is settled: the applicant must

Page | 3

set forth explicitly the circumstances rendering the matter urgent and the
reasons why it cannot be afforded redress in due course.1
[5] The papers before me demonstrates that the First Respondent intends to sell
the property forming part of the deceased estate to a third party. Such an act, if
carried out, would have the effect of permanently depriving the Applicants who
claim to be beneficiaries under the disputed Will of the deceased which they
allege forms part of their intended inheritance.
[6] The harm apprehended by the Applicants is immediate, ongoing, and
irreparable. Once the property is alienated and transferred, it would be
impossible to restore the status quo ante. In these circumstances, the
Applicants cannot be afforded substantial redress in due course. I accordingly
find that the matter is urgent and warrants enrolment on the urgent roll.
Requirements of an interim interdict
[7] The requirements for an interim interdict , as listed in Setlogelo v Setlogelo
2 are
trite:
a. A prima facie right, though open to some doubt;
b. A well- grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the relief is not
granted;
c. The balance of convenience must favour the granting of the interdict;
and
d. The absence of any other satisfactory remedy.

[8] On the facts, the Applicants have established a prima facie right. They rely on
testamentary documents allegedly executed by the deceased. Although the
authenticity of these documents is contested by the First Respondent, that is a
question for determination in Part B of these proceedings. For purposes of the

1 See Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another (t/a Makin’s Furniture
Manufacturers) 1977 (4) SA 135 (W) at 137F–H).
2 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 at 227; Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W) at 1189.

Page | 4

interim relief, it suffices that such right exists prima facie , even if open to some
doubt.3
[9] The harm apprehended is irreparable. The alienation of the property during the
pendency of a dispute concerning the validity of the deceased’s Will would
render any subsequent declaration of the Will’s validity nugatory. The
Applicants would be left with no adequate remedy in law to restore the propert y
or their legal rights to the property if sold or alienated .
[10] The balance of convenience favours the Applicants. The Respondents will not
suffer undue prejudice by the temporary preservation of the status quo,
whereas the Applicants stand to suffer irreversible loss if the property is
transferred, sold or alienated.
[11] The Applicants have no adequate alternative remedy. There is no mechanism
other than the interdict to preserve the property pending the resolution of Part
B.
[12] The requirements for an interim interdict are accordingly satisfied.
Conduct of the First Respondent’s attorney
[13] Before concluding, it is necessary to deal with an ancillary but grave matter
concerning the conduct of the First Respondent’s legal representative.
[14] When this matter was called, the A ttorney for the First Respondent sought to
appear before this Court without being properly robed, in disregard of the well -
established decorum and etiquette of this Court. This conduct by the Attorney
to appear in such fashion occasioned undue delay to the hearing and
constituted a discourtesy both to the Court and to opposing parties.
[15] The appearance of legal practitioners before courts is governed by rules of
professional conduct requiring that they appear robed as well as the practice

3 LF Boshoff Investments (Pty) Ltd v Cape Town Municipality 1969 (2) SA 256 (C) at 267A–F).

Page | 5

directives at our Courts. This is not a matter of formality alone, but one of
respect for the dignity and authority of the Court.4
[16] The Court indicated to the First Respondent Attorney that he is not properly
robed and thus cannot appear in such a fashion, he requested a stand down of
the proceedings for a period of 30 minutes. Due to the nature of the
proceedings being in the urgent court. The Court offered him 15 minutes to
redeem the nature of his appearance and be properly robed. The allocated time
came and passed and the proceedings commenced after the 30 minutes of the
forced adjournment. The Attorney only managed to re- appear after 40 minutes
and found the matter proceeding. This type of conduct cannot be countenanced
by this Court worse in urgent proceeding where the relief is sought on an urgent
basis.
[17] The Court cannot ignore such conduct, which undermines the administration of
justice and the functioning of our courts and the legal profession in genera. In
the circumstances, it is appropriate that the conduct of the attorney concerned
be referred to the Legal Practice Council for consideration in terms of section
55 of the Legal Practice Act.
5
[18] The practice directives of our division are prescriptive with regard to the dress
code of all practitioners appearing before the court either as advocates or
attorneys with right of appearance in the High Court. It is clear from the conduct
of the practitioner that appeared before me that , he either did not read what is
required or simply ignored the directives , clearly at his own peril. That type of
conduct is not only disruptive during the proceedings but also hamper the
administration of justice with undue delays.
Order
[19] In the result, the following order is made:
1. The application is declared to be urgent, and the non -compliance with
the Rules of this Court relating to service and time limits is condoned.

the Rules of this Court relating to service and time limits is condoned.

4 See Prokureursorde van Transvaal v Kleynhans 1995 (1) SA 839 (T); General Council of the
Bar of South Africa v Geach and Others 2013 (2) SA 52 (SCA).
5 28 of 2014.

Page | 6


2. Pending the determination of Part B of this application:

2.1 The First to Third Respondents are interdicted and restrained
from registering or causing to be registered any transaction or
transfer in respect of the property known as Erf 5[ …] P[…] Zone
5, Johannesburg, in the records of the Registrar of Deeds.

2.2 The First and Second Respondents are interdicted and
restrained from taking any steps towards the finalisation of the
administration of the Estate Late Simon Morare (Estate No.
0[…]).

3. The Applicants are granted leave to supplement their papers within
fifteen (15) days of this order in pursuit of Part B of the application.

4. The conduct of the attorney acting on behalf of the First Respondent, in
seeking to appear before this Court without being properly robed and
nonchalant delays of the Court proceedings , is hereby referred to the
Legal Practice Council for investigation in terms of section 55 of the
Legal Practice Act 28 of 2014.

5. The First Respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on
scale C.


___________________________
NTHAMBELENI AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG

Page | 7



HEARD : 30 October 2025
DELIVERED: 19 November 2025
FOR THE APPLICANT: Adv K Maponya
INSTRUCTED BY: Nkabinde Attorneys
FOR FIRST RESPONDENT: S Musingwini
INSTRUCTED BY: Musingwini & Associates

8

Back to Law Reports