Pienaar v Master of the Free State High Court

The testator, Frederik Jacobus du Toit, executed two wills: one on 27 November 2006 and a later one on 28 May 2007. He died on 30 June 2007. The 2006 will expressly revoked prior wills and bequeathed, among other things, his Sanlam Personal Portfolio (if payable to his estate) to his ex-wife, Cynthia du Toit, with the residue going to his daughters (the appellants). The 2007 will did not contain a revocation clause but disposed of the entire estate under a different scheme, including specific bequests of immovable properties to each of his children and a differently constituted residue. A dispute arose concerning a Sanlam investment policy (without a nominated beneficiary) valued at approximately R827 000. The Master upheld an objection by Du Toit and ruled that the policy should be paid to her in terms of the 2006 will. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that the later will impliedly revoked the earlier bequest.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order declaring that the 2007 will impliedly revoked the 2006 will insofar as inconsistent, that the Sanlam Personal Portfolio formed part of the residue of the estate, and that the second respondent was ordered to pay the costs.

The case confirms and clarifies South African law on implied revocation of wills, particularly where successive wills each purport to dispose of the entire estate. It reinforces that an express revocation clause is not required if the later will evidences a new and inconsistent testamentary scheme. The judgment is significant for estate planning and the interpretation of multiple testamentary instruments.