PVL2602
EXAM
PACK
2025
, lOMoARcPSD|58918787
Q1. In Van Zyl v Van Zy it was held:
1. Had no right to 20% of the trust capital
2. testators join their estates or portions of their estates, with the purpose of disposing
of the joint unit in a will and the surviving testator then accepts a benefit in terms of
the will.
3. Presumption regarding tacit fideicommissary also applies in cases of si sine liberi
decessrit
4. Effect will be given to a fideicommissum substitution where the wording of the will
clearly incorporates it
Q2. The court ruled that categories could not be extended (perhaps maybe to grandchildren
raised by grandparents:
1. Ex Parte Steenkamp and Steenkamp
2. Gavin v Kavin
3. L Taylor v AE Pim
4. Pillay v Nagan
Q3. The court held that it is not necessary to show the testator believed she succeeded in
making a valid will:
1. Moses v Abinader
2. Ex Parte Williams
3. Greenberg v Estate Greenberg
4. Back v Master of Supreme Court
Q4. In Wessels v De Jager it was held:
1. No revival of the will (by referring to a subsequent will)
2. Correction, deletion, insertion of words are allowed by law
3. He did not state his capacity as commissioner of oath (only as an admin official of the
hospital in Vereeniging
4. Insolvent person may repudiate to prevent benefit falling into insolvent estate
Q5. Please state whether the following statements are true or false:
1. In Daniels v Campbell, the court held the word ‘survivor’ includes surviving partner to
a polygamous Muslim marriage under Intestate and Maintenance Act
Answer: FALSE - monogamous
2. In Govender v Ragavayah, the court held the word ‘survivor’ includes surviving
partner to a polygamous Hindu marriage under Intestate and Maintenance Act
, lOMoARcPSD|58918787
ANSWER: FALSE - monogamous
3. In Levy v Schwartz, the court held that the intention was not to cause dissolution of
marriage, as the will referred only to the death of husband
ANSWER: FALSE - this was held in Ex Parte Swandevelder
4. “Should not marry a person outside Jewish faith” is against public policy
ANSWER: FALSE – It is not against public policy as held in Aronson v Estate
Hart
Q6. Match column A with Column B
Column A Column B
Casey v The Master Cause of someone’s downfall will be
regarded as Indignus
L Taylor v AE Pim Beneficiary forged a will – could not inherit
Gavin v Kavin Applicant failed to show that respondent
was disqualified (appreciate wrongfulness
of conduct)
Pillay v Nagan A person who negligently caused the death
of the testator may not inherit from the
testator
Van der Merwe v van Master of High court Stored Will on computer
MacDonald v Master Will in an email
Q7. The court held that the estate vests on date the Will first became inoperative
1. Greenberg v Estate Greenberg
2. Estate Orpen v Estate Atkinson
3. Harris v Assumed Admin MacGregor
4. Spies v Smith
Q8. The court held that there is nothing improper in convincing a testator by way of flattery:
1. Kirsten v Bailey
2. Barclays Bank DC & O v Anderson
3. Spies v Smith
4. Smith v Parsons
, lOMoARcPSD|58918787
Q9. Which case does not relate to the rescue provision of section 2A:
1. Letsekga v Master
2. Henwick v Master
3. Mdulu v Master
4. Casey v The Master
Q10. In Moses v Abinader it was decided:
1. S2(3) may be applied even if the deceased has not personally drafted or executed
the particular document, but has asked an attorney to do so.
2. No revival of the will (by referring to a subsequent will – incorporation by reference)
3. Presumption regarding tacit fideicommissary also applies in cases of si sine liberi
decessrit
4. Correction, deletion, insertion of words are allowed by law
Q11. In Radley v Stopforth it was decided:
1. Effect will be given to a fideicommissum substitution where the wording of the will
clearly incorporates it
2. Testatrix intended accrual to take place in favour of the nieces despite joinder of the
benefit was verbis tantum in form
3. X did not state his capacity as commissioner of oath (only as an admin official of the
hospital in Vereeniging
4. Not testator’s intention to create separation between wives and husbands.
Respondents forfeited their rights
Q12. In Greenberg v Estate Greenberg, the court held:
1. Trustee given delegated power to appoint income/capital beneficiaries from a
designated class of persons
2. Court refused S2(3) because it was not personally drafted by testator. It was drafted
by a bank official
3. Beneficiary does not obtain ownership of immovable property at testators death but
only at future date
4. testators join their estates or portions of their estates, with the purpose of disposing
of the joint unit in a will and the surviving testator then accepts a benefit in terms of
the will.
Q13. In Ex Parte Sidelsky, the court held:
1. will was revoked by acts of destruction
EXAM
PACK
2025
, lOMoARcPSD|58918787
Q1. In Van Zyl v Van Zy it was held:
1. Had no right to 20% of the trust capital
2. testators join their estates or portions of their estates, with the purpose of disposing
of the joint unit in a will and the surviving testator then accepts a benefit in terms of
the will.
3. Presumption regarding tacit fideicommissary also applies in cases of si sine liberi
decessrit
4. Effect will be given to a fideicommissum substitution where the wording of the will
clearly incorporates it
Q2. The court ruled that categories could not be extended (perhaps maybe to grandchildren
raised by grandparents:
1. Ex Parte Steenkamp and Steenkamp
2. Gavin v Kavin
3. L Taylor v AE Pim
4. Pillay v Nagan
Q3. The court held that it is not necessary to show the testator believed she succeeded in
making a valid will:
1. Moses v Abinader
2. Ex Parte Williams
3. Greenberg v Estate Greenberg
4. Back v Master of Supreme Court
Q4. In Wessels v De Jager it was held:
1. No revival of the will (by referring to a subsequent will)
2. Correction, deletion, insertion of words are allowed by law
3. He did not state his capacity as commissioner of oath (only as an admin official of the
hospital in Vereeniging
4. Insolvent person may repudiate to prevent benefit falling into insolvent estate
Q5. Please state whether the following statements are true or false:
1. In Daniels v Campbell, the court held the word ‘survivor’ includes surviving partner to
a polygamous Muslim marriage under Intestate and Maintenance Act
Answer: FALSE - monogamous
2. In Govender v Ragavayah, the court held the word ‘survivor’ includes surviving
partner to a polygamous Hindu marriage under Intestate and Maintenance Act
, lOMoARcPSD|58918787
ANSWER: FALSE - monogamous
3. In Levy v Schwartz, the court held that the intention was not to cause dissolution of
marriage, as the will referred only to the death of husband
ANSWER: FALSE - this was held in Ex Parte Swandevelder
4. “Should not marry a person outside Jewish faith” is against public policy
ANSWER: FALSE – It is not against public policy as held in Aronson v Estate
Hart
Q6. Match column A with Column B
Column A Column B
Casey v The Master Cause of someone’s downfall will be
regarded as Indignus
L Taylor v AE Pim Beneficiary forged a will – could not inherit
Gavin v Kavin Applicant failed to show that respondent
was disqualified (appreciate wrongfulness
of conduct)
Pillay v Nagan A person who negligently caused the death
of the testator may not inherit from the
testator
Van der Merwe v van Master of High court Stored Will on computer
MacDonald v Master Will in an email
Q7. The court held that the estate vests on date the Will first became inoperative
1. Greenberg v Estate Greenberg
2. Estate Orpen v Estate Atkinson
3. Harris v Assumed Admin MacGregor
4. Spies v Smith
Q8. The court held that there is nothing improper in convincing a testator by way of flattery:
1. Kirsten v Bailey
2. Barclays Bank DC & O v Anderson
3. Spies v Smith
4. Smith v Parsons
, lOMoARcPSD|58918787
Q9. Which case does not relate to the rescue provision of section 2A:
1. Letsekga v Master
2. Henwick v Master
3. Mdulu v Master
4. Casey v The Master
Q10. In Moses v Abinader it was decided:
1. S2(3) may be applied even if the deceased has not personally drafted or executed
the particular document, but has asked an attorney to do so.
2. No revival of the will (by referring to a subsequent will – incorporation by reference)
3. Presumption regarding tacit fideicommissary also applies in cases of si sine liberi
decessrit
4. Correction, deletion, insertion of words are allowed by law
Q11. In Radley v Stopforth it was decided:
1. Effect will be given to a fideicommissum substitution where the wording of the will
clearly incorporates it
2. Testatrix intended accrual to take place in favour of the nieces despite joinder of the
benefit was verbis tantum in form
3. X did not state his capacity as commissioner of oath (only as an admin official of the
hospital in Vereeniging
4. Not testator’s intention to create separation between wives and husbands.
Respondents forfeited their rights
Q12. In Greenberg v Estate Greenberg, the court held:
1. Trustee given delegated power to appoint income/capital beneficiaries from a
designated class of persons
2. Court refused S2(3) because it was not personally drafted by testator. It was drafted
by a bank official
3. Beneficiary does not obtain ownership of immovable property at testators death but
only at future date
4. testators join their estates or portions of their estates, with the purpose of disposing
of the joint unit in a will and the surviving testator then accepts a benefit in terms of
the will.
Q13. In Ex Parte Sidelsky, the court held:
1. will was revoked by acts of destruction
