Raubenheimer v Raubenheimer

The deceased, Dr S P Raubenheimer, signed a document dated 30 March 2006 purporting to be his last will, drafted by his insurance broker, Mr Hagen. The document was signed by the testator but not properly witnessed in compliance with s 2(1) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, as the witnesses later appended their signatures without being present at execution. The will bequeathed the deceased’s estate to his spouse, the appellant, granting her a ‘usufruct’ over the matrimonial home until death or remarriage, and referred to an attached list of specific bequests that was never prepared or attached. In the alternative, if the spouse predeceased him, the estate was bequeathed to his children (the respondents). After the deceased’s death, the Master accepted the will. The respondents challenged its validity, alleging non-compliance with formalities and vagueness, and claimed intestacy. The High Court held the will void for vagueness. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The order of the High Court declaring the will void was set aside. The Master of the High Court was ordered to accept the will dated 30 March 2006 as the deceased’s will for purposes of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965.

The case is significant for South African succession law as it confirms the courts’ willingness to condone non-compliance with formalities under s 2(3) of the Wills Act where testamentary intention is clear. It also provides authoritative guidance on the interpretation of poorly drafted wills, particularly the distinction between usufructs and fideicommissa, and confirms that beneficiaries may be identified by necessary implication to avoid intestacy.