COMPARATIVE LEGAL HISTORY
FINAL EXAM 2012
THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP (FORMALITIES)
TOPIC THREE: THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP (CAUSAL V ABSTRACT CONVEYANCE)
THE CONCEPT OF OWNERSHIP
Ex Parte Marais and Others
Deals with the effect that repudiation of a fiduciary interest by a surviving spouse
has on the vesting of the inheritance on the children of the marriage.
Spouses created a will appointing their children as universal hei
HASSAM V JACOBS NO AND OTHERS
LANGA CJ, MOSENEKE DCJ, CAMERON J, MOKGORO J, NGCOBO J, O REGAN J, SACHS J, SKWEYIYA J, VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J, YACOOB J
CONCUR WITH NKABINDE J
2009 July 15.
This case follows the similar reasoning in Danie
HARRIS V ASSUMED ADMINISTRATOR, ESTATE MACGREGOR
RABIE ACJ, GROSSKOPF JA, JANSEN JA, JOUBERT JA, KUMLEBEN AJA
1987 May 11, 27.
This case sets aside the general principle that intestate heirs are to be ascertained by reference to the dat
BHE AND OTHERS V MAGISTRATE KHAYELITSHA; SHIBI V SITHOLE; SAHRC V PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
CHASKALSON CJ, MADALA J, MOKGORO J, MOSENEKE J, O REGAN J, SACHS J, SKWEYIYA J, VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J, YACOOB CONCURS
GORY V KOLVER NO
LANGA CJ, MOSENEKE DCJ, KONDILE AJ, MADALA J, MOKGORO J, OREGAN J, SACHS J, VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J AND YACOOB J CONCUR
WITH VAN HEERDEN AJ
2006 August 24, 2006 November 23.
This case confers that the omission of partner
WEBB V DAVIES NO AND OTHERS
SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
MOHAMED CJ, MARAIS JA, ZULMAN JA, PLEWMAN JA, MELUNSKY AJA
1998 February 24, March 17.
This case sets out the difference between suspensive conditions, resolutive conditions and moduses and how they affe
DANIELS V CAMPBELL NO
CHASKALSON CJ, LANGA DCJ, ACKERMAN J, MOKGORO J, NGCOBO J, O REGAN J, YACOOB J CONCUR WITH SACHS J
2003 November 6, 2004 March 11.
This case extends the term spouse under the Intestate Succession Act and survivor
EX PARTE MARAIS AND OTHERS
TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION
DE WET J
1953 October 8, 22.
This case sets out the effects of repudiation and shows that a fiduciary can repudiate their fideicommissum in order for it
to pass on to the heirs, one must still howev
GROSS AND OTHERS V PENTZ
CORBETT CJ, GROSSKOPF JA, GROSSKOPF JA, HARMS JA, ZULMAN AJA
1996 May 3, August 22.
This case sets out the general rule for locus standi with regard to beneficiaries and executors and notes that there is an
EX PARTE GRAHAM
DURBAN AND COAST LOCAL DIVISION
1963 June 7, 14.
This case confirms the principle that when two people die in the same accident there is no presumption that one
predeceased the other this has to be proven and it is a factual enqui
Casey NO v The Master And Others
Case deals with the situation where a person due to benefit under a will is in fact
the person who caused the death of the testator. Forfeiture of benefits.
The deceased (wife) and respondent (husband) made a joint
CASEY NO V THE MASTER AND OTHERS
NATAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION
1991 September 11, 27.
This case concerns the issue of whether someone can benefit from their own wrongdoing and confirms our common law
principle that one cannot benefit from their own
DANIELZ NO V DE WET AND ANOTHER
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL
2008 May 15.
This case concerns the principle in our law of whether a person can derive any benefit from their own criminal conduct
and in this a wife participates in the killing of
GOVENDER V RAGAVAYAH AND OTHERS
DURBAN AND LOCAL COAST DIVISION
2008 November 6.
This case concerns the extension of the word spouse in the Intestate Succession Act to include those involved in Hindu
rite marriages. A similar reasoning is applied
EX PARTE ALBERTS AND OTHERS
TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION
MURRAY J, RAMSBOTTOM J
1944 February 12, 23.
This case looks to explore the responsibilities and obligations that a fideicommissum has to uphold under a will, and
challenges whether these responsib
GREENBERG AND OTHERS V ESTATE GREENBERG
CENTLIVRES CJ, SCHREINER JA, HOEXTER JA, FAGAN JA, STEYN JA
1955 May 9, May 30.
This case is the quintessential case to determine when dies cedit et venit ought to be determined as this explains w
McAlpine v McAlpine 1997 (1) SA 736 (A):
Generally accepted that the reason that pactum successrium = invalid is that i) it restricts
freedom of testation and ii) evasion of required formalities for testamentary instruments
But says that in addition t