Second Respondent. Fourth Respondent. Sixth Respondent. Seventh Respondent. Eighth Respondent. This matter comes before us on appeal against the judgment of the High Court. In a defended action in the High Court the two appellants, as first and second plaintiffs, sued the respondents, as first to eighth defendants.
Both parents are deceased, the husband predeceasing the wife. The appellants claimed in their action:. An order declaring the will of the testatrix dated 18 August to be null and void. An order declaring that the will of 1 October is the valid will of the testatrix. Cost of suit against such defendants who oppose the action. The claim was based on the allegation that:. Needless to say that respondents denied that allegation, and referred to a number of incidents or reasons, on which they relied to refute it.
The court a quo correctly identified the issue to be decided as whether the deceased was so mentally incapacitated at the time when she executed the disputed will, that she could not legally do it, i. At the outset it is necessary to briefly outline the background to this unfortunate family feud and the circumstances surrounding the making of the 18 August will the disputed will.
I call it a family feud because the family, apparently formerly closely knit has, as result, been divided into two camps beset with mutual suspicion, recrimination and distrust and, as the court a quo remarked, because of the legal battle over the assets of the deceased mother, the case has proved opposite of the common adage blood is thicker than water.
Before the death of their father the parents were apparently rather wealthy and owned several farms in the Outjo area in Namibia. The parents made a joint will on 21 October and when the father Gabriel Johannes Vermeulen died in , the mother inherited all the assets in the joint estate.
