An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org:8891

In Geldenhuys v Borman, an important case in the South African law of succession, the testator had executed a total of three wills, each revoking the previous one. For about three years the testator was a patient in Fort England, but he was released at a later stage. At the time the last will was executed, and although the testator was declared incapable of managing his affairs, there was no declaration that the testator was mentally incapable. Geldenhuys approached the court to declare all three wills invalid. The court noted that there is a presumption of competency, so that the onus of proof is on the person alleging incapacity. The court held that Geldenhuys had not discharged this onus, as incapacity to manage one's affairs is not the same as mental incapacity. The wills were accordin

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • In Geldenhuys v Borman, an important case in the South African law of succession, the testator had executed a total of three wills, each revoking the previous one. For about three years the testator was a patient in Fort England, but he was released at a later stage. At the time the last will was executed, and although the testator was declared incapable of managing his affairs, there was no declaration that the testator was mentally incapable. Geldenhuys approached the court to declare all three wills invalid. The court noted that there is a presumption of competency, so that the onus of proof is on the person alleging incapacity. The court held that Geldenhuys had not discharged this onus, as incapacity to manage one's affairs is not the same as mental incapacity. The wills were accordingly declared valid. (en)
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 40849113 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 1472 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1084890690 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • In Geldenhuys v Borman, an important case in the South African law of succession, the testator had executed a total of three wills, each revoking the previous one. For about three years the testator was a patient in Fort England, but he was released at a later stage. At the time the last will was executed, and although the testator was declared incapable of managing his affairs, there was no declaration that the testator was mentally incapable. Geldenhuys approached the court to declare all three wills invalid. The court noted that there is a presumption of competency, so that the onus of proof is on the person alleging incapacity. The court held that Geldenhuys had not discharged this onus, as incapacity to manage one's affairs is not the same as mental incapacity. The wills were accordin (en)
rdfs:label
  • Geldenhuys v Borman (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License