Casey NO v The Master:
• When the husband was disqualified from inheriting, he approached the
HC to relax the maxim.
• His counsel argued:
• The principle was obsolete in the case of negligent killing.
• The court did not agree, and the disqualification remained.
• The court held:
• The maxim still applied in the circumstances.
• The husband, who had been convicted of culpable homicide in that
he had killed his wife in a shooting accident, was not entitled to
benefit under her will and that she had accordingly died intestate.
• The court held further:
• If the application of the maxim caused hardship it was for the
Legislature to intervene and relax the effect of the principle.
• In this case, disqualified from inheriting but could take his share of joint
estate.
, Leeb v Leeb:
• When one spouse murders the other, court has the power to order a
forfeiture of the benefits of marriage in community of property.
• Wife was convicted of the murder of her husband. Married ICOP.
• Application for an order declaring that the wife had, by reason of her
having murdered the deceased, forfeited any financial or patrimonial
benefit to which she would have been entitled as a result of the
deceased’s death and that she had forfeited the benefits of the
marriage in community of property.
• Court held:
Under the common law the innocent spouse is, when obtaining a divorce:
- Entitled to an order of forfeiture by the guilty spouse of the
benefits of the marriage in community of property.
Where one of the two spouses to a marriage in community of property,
murders the other, the court has the power to order that the spouse
who committed the murder, forfeits, by reason of the murder, the
benefits of the marriage in community of property.
However, in this matter there was no proof before the Court that the
wife had in fact murdered the deceased. The mere conviction of the
wife was not sufficient evidence that she had in fact murdered the
deceased.
• The Court accordingly ordered that the matter be referred for oral
evidence.
• Whether the wife did in fact murder the deceased and
further what the respective contributions of the wife and
the deceased were to the community estate.
• When the husband was disqualified from inheriting, he approached the
HC to relax the maxim.
• His counsel argued:
• The principle was obsolete in the case of negligent killing.
• The court did not agree, and the disqualification remained.
• The court held:
• The maxim still applied in the circumstances.
• The husband, who had been convicted of culpable homicide in that
he had killed his wife in a shooting accident, was not entitled to
benefit under her will and that she had accordingly died intestate.
• The court held further:
• If the application of the maxim caused hardship it was for the
Legislature to intervene and relax the effect of the principle.
• In this case, disqualified from inheriting but could take his share of joint
estate.
, Leeb v Leeb:
• When one spouse murders the other, court has the power to order a
forfeiture of the benefits of marriage in community of property.
• Wife was convicted of the murder of her husband. Married ICOP.
• Application for an order declaring that the wife had, by reason of her
having murdered the deceased, forfeited any financial or patrimonial
benefit to which she would have been entitled as a result of the
deceased’s death and that she had forfeited the benefits of the
marriage in community of property.
• Court held:
Under the common law the innocent spouse is, when obtaining a divorce:
- Entitled to an order of forfeiture by the guilty spouse of the
benefits of the marriage in community of property.
Where one of the two spouses to a marriage in community of property,
murders the other, the court has the power to order that the spouse
who committed the murder, forfeits, by reason of the murder, the
benefits of the marriage in community of property.
However, in this matter there was no proof before the Court that the
wife had in fact murdered the deceased. The mere conviction of the
wife was not sufficient evidence that she had in fact murdered the
deceased.
• The Court accordingly ordered that the matter be referred for oral
evidence.
• Whether the wife did in fact murder the deceased and
further what the respective contributions of the wife and
the deceased were to the community estate.
