JUDGMENT – WRIGHT J
1. The applicant is the daughter of a woman who died some ten years ago.
The second respondent is a firm of attorneys.
2. The founding affidavit relates a long history of difficulty and frustration
for the applicant relating to the administration of the deceased estate of
her mother. Files allegedly get lost in attorneys’ offices and the original
will is lost.
3. The applicant blames the second respondent.
4. The applicant seeks, in broad terms, an order that a copy of her late
mother’s will be accepted by the Master. The applicant, in her founding
affidavit, says that she is the nominated heir and that she looked after
her mother. The applicant candidly says that if a copy of the will is not
accepted then her late brother’s children will inherit, which according to
the applicant, would be against her mother’s wishes and it would be
unfair as they did not care for the applicant’s mother while she was
alive.
5. In my view, the applicant’s late brother’s children have a direct and
substantial interest in the outcome of this application and they should
have been joined as respondents. The matter cannot proceed for this
reason alone.
6. The applicant seeks an order that the second respondent be removed as
executor in the deceased estate. Costs are sought against the second
respondent.
Applicant Adv D Theodorellis
Instructed by Louw Strydom Inc
alicia@louwstrydom.co.za
Second Respondent Adv G Ruther
Instructed by Miranda and Associates Inc
keith@mirandalaw.co.za