The grandson of a deceased claimed that a second will his grandmother had made, in which she had disinherited him, was a forgery as, according to him, her fingerprint which was used to sign the will, was “forced” on the document.

Lerato Dyantyi (applicant) told the Circuit Court, sitting in Thembalethu, south of George, that his grandmother was also not of sound mind when she was said to have changed her will in 2020. In this will her two sons, his uncles, are the sole beneficiaries of her estate.

In a will drawn-up by her in 2017, he is named the sole beneficiary. He asked the court to accept this as being her true wishes.

Dinah Dyantyi died in September 2022. The applicant resided on the property with his grandmother, which forms part of her estate. 

In terms of the will, the deceased’s sons, Trevor and Theo Dyantyi inherit the estate, in equal shares, including the property.

After her passing and the coming to light of the 2020 will, he had to vacate from the property. He said he found it “highly unlikely” that the document would reflect the wishes of his grandmother given that in 2020 his grandmother was in no mental position (as he believed) to have made a will.

According to him she had a “confused mental state” and that she was forced to sign a document by attaching her fingerprint, without knowing that she was signing a new will.

Popsi Dyantyi, the daughter of the deceased,  in turn said her mother expressed the wish to make a new will in October 2020 and she (Popsi) went to the attorney’s office with her mother. According to her the will was signed (by way of thumb print) by her mother in the presence of the attorney and witnesses.

The applicant, however, persisted that his grandmother was not in a physical and mental state to attend to the execution of the will as claimed. In support of this, he obtained an affidavit from Freda Cronje, who states that she was the frail care assistant to the deceased for an extended period.

According to her, the deceased was very confused and mentally incapacitated. She also stated that the deceased could not have attended the offices of an attorney as she would have known about it.  She said the deceased was bedridden at this time, and, in any event, the deceased shared everything with her and would have told her about it.

The attorney meanwhile said the deceased did go to his office and she appeared coherent to him, although she was in a wheelchair and could not hold a pen. He was satisfied (in his capacity as an attorney) that she appreciated the instructions and the nature and effect thereof. He described the procedure he followed in affixing her thumbprint using his inkpad.

The court accepted this version and ordered that the 2020 will be accepted. 

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link