REEN COMBINATION MOCK 5 ( COURT CASES): 10 QUESTIONS 45 MINUTES 60% PASS MARK

The court held that Section 1 of the Intestate Section Act to be inconsistent with the Constitution to the extent that it did include more than one spouse in a polygamous Muslim marriage. This was a decision held in Hassam v Jacobs.

Is this statement true or false.

True
False

The following was held in Minister of Education and Another v Syfrets: Select the correct statement:

A beneficiary cannot act improperly or illegally and then, when being taken to task by the executor.
Trust clauses that offend a wider community is not constitutional.
Claim by surviving spouse in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990. Primary obligation of support rests on a spouse, and if deceased
Divorce case where the matrimonial consequences included the accrual system

Match the court case with the decisions held:

Sort elements

Oshry v Feldman
Steyn No and Others v Blockpave (Pty) Ltd
Lupacchini and Others V Minister of Safety and Security

Claim by surviving spouse in terms of the Maintenance of Surviving Spouses Act 27 of 1990. Primary obligation of support rests on a spouse, and if deceased, on the estate of the latter – provided that the jurisdictional requirements are met

Non compliance to joint action rule may result in the invalidity of actions between a trustee and 3rd parties.

a trust established by a trust deed is not a legal person – it is more of a legal relationship

Match the court case with the decisions that were held.

Sort elements

A beneficiary never becomes the owner of any inherited asset upon the death of the deceased.
Court refused to condone an email message as the last will and testament of the deceased person according to the provisions in S2(3) of the Wills Act
With regards to Trust assets: there must be a separation of Trust assets and enjoyment. If no clear distinction, assets will form part of a divorce award
Unfair discrimination in the interest of the RSA is prohibited in the Constitution. Discrimination shall not be tolerated

Britz No v Strydom and Another
Dreyden v Harrison
Badenhorst v Badenhorst
BoE Trust Ltd NO and Another

The judge emphasized that nobody has a right to inherit and, that the testator is still free to choose who they want to benefit from his estate. The Testator can bequeath to whomever and can disinherit a family member.

Judge held that if a provision in a will discriminates against someone purely on the basis of on the grounds in Section 9 of the Constitution, such provisions will be unlawful and invalid.

This decision was held in the following court case: Select the correct statement

Khan v Khan
King N.O and Others v De Jager and Others
Dryden v Harrison
Bwanya v Master of the High Court
The relevant court case is not on the list for selection

The Court held that a polygamous Muslim marriage gave rise to a legal duty on the part of the husband to maintain his wife as contemplated in section 2(1) of the

Maintenance Act 99 of 1998. The court case relevant to this decision was held : Select the correct court case:

Jordaan v Jordaan
Khan v Khan
Coetzee v Peet Smith
Oshry v Feldman
The relevant court case is not on the list for selection
The relevant court case is not on the list for selection

Volks NO v Robinson and others was a determination on the Maintenance of Surviving Spouse Act and the right to equality. This lead to a decision that a ‘’survivor’’ should include a reference to the ‘’surviving partner of a permanent life partnership’’. They however proposed a 2 year suspension from the date of court in 2016. This change is yet to be effected. Is this statement correct or not correct.

Correct
Incorrect

Gory v Kolver No and others, it was held that:

Select the correct option:

Partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken the reciprocal duties of support, held that are regarded as spouses for the purpose of S1 of the Maintenance of the Surviving Spouse Act
Partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have not undertaken the reciprocal duties of support, held that life partners in a permanent same-sex relationship can be regarded as spouses for the purpose of S1 of the Intestate Succession Act.
Partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken the reciprocal duties of support. Constitutional Court held that life partners in a permanent same-sex relationship are regarded as spouses for the purpose of S1 of the Intestate Succession Act.
Partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken the reciprocal duties of support, are regarded as spouses for the purpose of S1 of the Intestate Succession Act.
The decision held in the relevant court case is not on the list for selection