Legal battle unfolds as siblings contest mother's will

A BITTER legal feud has erupted between two siblings regarding the inheritance of their late mother, who bequeathed her estate solely to her son.

The daughter, who was left out as a beneficiary, claims that her mother lacked the mental capacity to create a new will that disinherited her.

During proceedings at the North West High Court in Mafikeng, the son, referred to as the respondent, stated that their mother, the deceased, had obtained a protection order against her daughter two years before her death.

This, he argued, was a significant factor in their mother’s decision to disinherit her daughter.

Conversely, the daughter, identified only as M, alleged that her brother, referred to as V, forged their mother’s signature on the will. She successfully petitioned for the matter to be heard in court through oral evidence, allowing her brother's claims regarding the legality of the will to be scrutinised, an action that the brother opposed.

The court determined that the facts surrounding the case were in dispute and that oral evidence was the appropriate method for establishing the truth.

In the main proceedings, the daughter is seeking to have her mother’s will set aside. Her grounds for this request include allegations of forgery by her brother, a lack of testamentary capacity on the part of the deceased, and undue influence exerted by her brother.

At the time of her death, the deceased owned several immovable properties located in Mogale City and Moruleng in North West, as well as various motor vehicles. The daughter contended that her mother suffered from serious chronic illnesses, including hypertension, diabetes, and renal failure, during the three years leading up to her death.

She argued that these conditions altered her mother’s mental state, rendering her unable to understand the nature and consequences of executing a will just months before her passing.

Furthermore, the daughter claimed that her brother, who lived with the deceased, was abusive and a substance abuser, exerting undue influence over their mother. She noted that their mother typically nominated both children equally across all her policies and would not have disinherited them had she been of sound mind.

The daughter suggested that the will was not prepared according to their mother’s instructions but rather at the behest of her brother, implying that their mother did not fully grasp the consequences of the will.

Adding to the suspicion, the daughter raised concerns that the signature on the will may be forged or otherwise not indicative of a conscious and capable act of the testatrix.

In response, the son maintained that their mother possessed full testamentary capacity when she made the will. He presented a detailed chronology of her dealings with her financial advisor as evidence. He stated that she drove herself from Rustenburg to Pretoria to consult on the preparation of her will, completed the wills application form, and authorised its submission to Standard Bank.

He denied the allegations of undue influence, pointing to a protection order obtained by the deceased against her daughter, which he argued demonstrated their lack of closeness.

The son further contended that his sister had provided no expert medical evidence, handwriting analysis, or any substantiation to support her claims of forgery or incapacity. The court remarked that in cases concerning the validity of a will, the central inquiry remains the testator’s mental capacity at the precise moment of execution.

The documents reveal indisputable areas of factual contention, particularly regarding the deceased’s mental capacity at the time the will was executed, the presence or absence of undue influence, and whether the will reflects the deceased’s true intentions.

The court concluded that these issues could only be resolved through oral evidence.

SUNDAY TRIBUNE