Moraladi v Sakal NO and Others (Ex Tempore) (2750/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 193 (25 September 2025)
Click here to download the case
The applicant (ESKM), the surviving son of the deceased, brought an urgent application seeking an interim interdict to prevent the respondents from transferring or distributing certain immovable properties and estate assets pending the determination of the validity of the deceased’s will. First respondent (SLS) is the executor of the estate and fourth respondent is the Registrar of Deeds.
SLS opposed the application on the grounds of delay and non-joinder.
There is a separate application still pending in the same Court wherein the validity of the will of the deceased is contested.
The Court (Tsautse AJ) reviewed the legal position as well as case law and inter alia referred to Beukman v Pieterse N.O. and Others (2526/2024)[2024] ZAWCHC 391 where it was confirmed that executors must act with the utmost fidelity and impartially. The Court found that these principles strongly apply in the present matter, where distribution is threatened despite a live challenge to the will.
The Court then came to the conclusion that an executor who distributes an estate while the will’s validity is contested acts at his peril if he proceeds with distribution and that the executor may be held personally liable if the will is later set aside.
The Court further found that there are indeed issues of non-joinder and delay, but these defects are capable of cure. What cannot be cured is the irreversible dissipation of estate assets while this Court is seized with a challenge to the very instrument upon which the executor relies.
The Court granted the interim interdict and SLS was instructed to pay the costs of the urgent application.
This case emphasizes the fact that executors must at all times act with utmost fidelity and impartiality.
Summarized by Jan du Plessis