Mitchell NO v Wren

The deceased, Carolynn Ellen De Villiers, committed suicide on 9 June 2012. Shortly before her death she wrote two handwritten notes (annexures A and B) containing testamentary dispositions in favour of her same-sex life partner, Sandra Jane Wren (first respondent), and her close friend, Yolandi Mynhardt (second respondent). The deceased had executed a formal will in July 2011 in which only her father and brother were beneficiaries. The two handwritten notes did not comply with the formalities of the Wills Act 7 of 1953. The Master refused to accept annexure A as a will or codicil. The respondents approached the High Court for relief under s 2(3) of the Wills Act. The High Court declared annexure A to be a valid codicil. The executor of the estate appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, disputing whether the two notes were compatible and whether it could be established which was written last.

The appeal was dismissed. Annexure A was confirmed as a valid codicil to the deceased’s will. The costs of the appeal, on an attorney-and-client scale including the costs of two counsel, were ordered to be paid out of the deceased’s estate.

The case is significant for its application of s 2(3) of the Wills Act and its reaffirmation that courts may condone non-compliant testamentary documents where a deceased’s intention is established. It provides guidance on how courts determine the sequence and compatibility of multiple informal testamentary writings, especially in emotionally charged contexts such as suicide notes, and confirms that surrounding circumstances and probabilities may be used to infer final testamentary intention.