Can a testator rule from the grave?

“I was recently appointed as the executor of a deceased estate of a family member. The provisions of the deceased’s last will and testament are very strict and every bequest is subject to some form of condition. Do I have to adhere to the provisions of the last will and testament or did the deceased exceed his right to rule from the grave?”

One of the cornerstones of the law of succession in South Africa is the principle of freedom of testation. The basic principle is that the testator should be free to distribute the assets he or she collected in life to his or her surviving family members in order to care for them and ensure that they are provided for after his or her death. But freedom of testation goes beyond that in that the testator is free to determine that these assets can be distributed to whosoever the testator wishes. Our courts have also confirmed this position where it has been affirmed that a person’s wishes must be followed and that our section 25 of the Constitution protects a person’s right to dispose of their assets as they wish upon their death.

This means it is extremely difficult to contest a will successfully and have its provisions challenged. But this doesn’t mean that a testator has a totally unfettered discretion. There are in essence two broad areas in terms of which the principle of freedom of testation is limited:

1. Statutory claims

In terms of the South African common law, minor children have to be cared for and have a claim against a deceased estate of their parents. Claims of this nature also extend to a surviving spouse and the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990 allows for claims to be instituted by a surviving spouse against the deceased estate. Accordingly, if a last will and testament excludes these dependants from an estate, they could be reinstated as beneficiaries. 

Furthermore, the Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956 stipulates that the trustees of the Pension Fund must identify all possible dependants who might have a claim to a pension benefit before distributing the deceased’s share of the fund, irrespective of what the fund member states in his or her will.

2. Public policy and constitutional rights

A second limitation is where the wishes in the last will and testament of the deceased are contrary to public policy or the public morals – in other words, harmful to the welfare of society. An example hereof is found in Emma Smith Educational Fund v the University of KwaZulu-Natal and Others (2010), where the last will and testament of the deceased stated that only European girls born of British South African or Dutch South African parents could benefit from an educational fund set up in terms of the will. This case confirmed that the principle of freedom of testation when weighed up against the right to racial and gender equality afforded to an individual by the Constitution, will always come second if challenged in a court of law. 

Section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 can also be used to negate discriminatory exclusions in testamentary charitable trusts. This Act empowers the High Court to change the provisions of trust instruments and wills. 

A testator can therefore rule quite extensively from beyond the grave, but not completely unfettered. As executor you would be well advised to discuss any provisions that may limit the testator’s right of testation with a specialist to ensure you apply the provisions of the will correctly.

March 16, 2021
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest