Coetzee v Bosman; Van As v Bosman

Two appellants each instituted separate claims against the respondent in her capacity as the Master's representative in the Estate of the Late Hermanus Louw Bosman. The first appellant (case 238/2021) claimed R6,400.00 for goods and services (motor spares and repairs) rendered to the deceased. The second appellant (case 239/2021) claimed R52,664.10 for division of jointly held assets and R48,000.00 for reimbursement of jointly incurred expenses. The defendant failed to enter an appearance to defend in both matters, and the appellants applied for default judgment. The Magistrate at Porterville raised two queries mero motu: whether claims were submitted timeously and whether the court had jurisdiction. The plaintiffs confirmed both. Despite this, the Magistrate dismissed both claims for lack of jurisdiction, finding that claims against a deceased estate must be dealt with solely under the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965, without citing any supporting authority.

• Whether the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to entertain common law claims against a deceased estate, or whether such claims must be dealt with exclusively under the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.
• Whether the Magistrate misdirected himself by dismissing the claims for lack of jurisdiction on the basis that the Administration of Estates Act provides the exclusive remedy for claims against deceased estates.

Condonation granted for delays in both appeals. Both appeals upheld. In case 238/2021: the Magistrate's order set aside, substituted with declaration of jurisdiction and default judgment granted. In case 239/2021: the Magistrate's order set aside, jurisdiction confirmed, default judgment application remitted to a different magistrate for determination on the merits. No order as to costs in either matter.

The statutory scheme of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 does not oust a creditor's common law right to institute action against a deceased estate for payment of a claim. A Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to entertain common law claims brought against the executor or Master's representative of a deceased estate, and such claims are not required to be dealt with exclusively under the Administration of Estates Act.

The Magistrate in case 239/2021 made certain obiter remarks critical of the merits of the claims, though these were not part of the binding ruling on jurisdiction.

This judgment reaffirms, at High Court level, the principle established in Nedbank v Steyn that creditors retain their common law right to sue a deceased estate directly, and that the Administration of Estates Act does not provide an exclusive remedy that ousts the jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. It serves as a corrective to Magistrates who might erroneously decline jurisdiction over claims against deceased estates.