~ate gon es, namely; trusts. , ro l" 1!1d UH'- '''~•• - - -~ tur th1.: (),::•_·.

.
. . . s ecif ic ann nals.
and mai nten anc e of one of 11101 e · P '~~

CONS TR UC TIO N OF WI LL S ..::-) /$10>;,.. O b,ecJ, V:~ - )

Gen era l Pri nci ple s

.
It sometunes becomes necessa-~ry ..
the corn t no
fo1
t onl y to det erm ine wh eth er or not the docu
n1t111.
alleged to be a wil l is a valid will, but also nea nin g and effe ct of the words and Ph
what t l1e 1
rast~
used by the testator in the will are. Firs
• •
t, 1t must emei ge
• 1 • from the wo rd
s, phr ase s and exn res .·
use d that the document was made in con ----:..i: ;. s1on~
templ ation of death i.e. tha t it is teStame
·
ntary. 'The rei~
o t1h e cou rt 1·s the__,_ . ·
refore to decide what meanmg s I1ou 1-::.iCt b attr ibu tea to an y di sputed clau se · ,
' e ,,,,, : . 1n..::
will. I ',)
~( D Gu,} C'c:~ ~ 1 · ~ ·1t·,. , aJ · \ r<\e_~ ;,., -5·
- ~ r
r~ a ~ .;"7 ,. . .
~ y~\; .l p~ t~.
'f ~ r;... ~
Issu es rela ting to con stru ctio n of wills
arise out of poo r d~afting. Th e ~na in
obj ~ct ive oft\~~
con stru ct ion of a w ill is to as~erta in the
te~~~- ;,s- intention~ as. ex p...r..es sed in the
wiJ l. -i n Perrilh1
Jvfo rg an (19 43) AC 399 Lor d Sim on
LC said that 'the que stio n is not, of cou
rse , wh at the lcstatoli
m ean t to do wh en he made his will, but
whc1t the written wo ra s he use s me an
in the 12~11iicular
cas e- wh at are the "ex pre sse d intentio
ns" of the testat01r' . (National Soc iety for
the Prevention of \
Cru elty to Children vs. Scottish Nation
al Society for the Prevention of Cru elty
(1915) AC 207). .
., - ., _, >
.
. ,: _,,," _,·,.. , :"" "", r ,:<
to .Childre
'
., n
, :" "" ~ . . ~ .J l ~o,
~
.
··11
·i -tt,.- , , ,, "1·~
' "'\ \
' 7 ·.M
l - - \ -. J\
=·
. ,. L

·-
~:. - .. ( '" •

vVh ere a wil l use s wo rds and phr ases

wh ich are cap a131 e of two or mo re nea
1 nin gs and doe s-not
sho w in wh ich sen se the test ato r inte
nde d to use t11em, the cou11 is fac ed wit
h two alte n1atiYes
eith er to d ec lare the wi ll voi d for unc
erta inty or dec ide on wh ich of the ava
ilab le inte rpr eta tions
is to be giv en to the di si2 ute d cla use. ~ The latt
e·r cou rse is kno wn as the ben evo len t
ap_PI.Q ach to
I :1It
-uction of wills. Thi s app roac h has
ll1~ -onstl o· .
t11e i; oIVen rise t 0 ·h
t e so-called rule s of con stru ctio n of
h<lt ,viJl 5·
1

der s ~ 22 of the Law of Suc ces sion Act

will
(}n F·rst Sch edu le to the Act Th
def the i ~ s are conS t rued acc ord ing to the rule s mad
vn --- -;re bas ed on som e b . . • ere are 78 rul f e
.
sc rules . - es o con stru ctio n und er the First Sch edu le.
fhe b as1c gen eral prin ci l , .
P es of the con stru ctio .
d here cow1 . n of will s whi ch are
~~~ '

~ . ~~>-~'''~' ~~ ' l" .;. ,.,·:y,

J i_
our : ~ " )': '
fhC C t Con stru es Wi lls, it doe s not R I· b.J ,J ,J~
r' rl.p
ema \.C The m. G 1 •J"

_duty of the cou rt is to inte rpre t the wor

fhc _, - -- . ., d . .
s as used by the_!estaj.Qr m the will regardless of
whe~1 r they pro duc e an unf air resu lt . ·ct l
~:::,_,!.-- --- ... ..; ;.; - ~ , piovi ec that was the intentio
. a test n of the testator. Eve n
whe1e ator has not ma de a pro · · .1~ • ·
- - - __ __vi ~ •
-01 his lawful dependants 1t . .
1s not for the c;pp rt in
-----
.mterp reting the will to see k to ma ke pro - ·
.1t stai
i: 1
~~-- - - _ _ vi s ion
ds and pro nou nce s tha t the sur vi·vo •
· 1orc
~
t hese survivor . s. The
_,,...,..__
court interprets the wil l as
Is are no t prov1·ded for. Thereafter the sw: . •
vivars II1ay, 1f
IJ 1heY. so wis h fil e the nec e~s ary app~ic~tion
them out~ f the ,est ate. Thu s the cou rt's --
ask ing the court to m.ake a reasonable pro
t;·
visi on for

new will for him .

_, ,- ,
bus i~ess is
·-~-_ ,...._..-----··
~on~~~-~~fue testato; '~ ~ ill, not to mak e
a

Note, however, tha t a m ech ani cal app lica

..-
tion of this prin cipl e -~an som etim es pro
,;,,-- ~

..
duc e absurd
resul ts and obv iou s inju stic e. In Sca le v.
~ awlings (1892) A.C. 342 a test ato r dev
ised thre e of
his houses to A (his nie ce) for life and
pro vid ed that sho uld A die leav ing no
...,.,......
I • ;.""';
'I! chi ldre n, tho se
,,-,,•1,);-•••:, .J.
'CJ'.zw r"~ .-,c:,-- f ;t:

houses were to go to hi s nep hew s. " A" - ..

die d leav ing som~ lill~rep .sµi:¼Lvin garh

e -u~ < er. It was arg ued
onbehalf of A ' s ch ildr en tha t the test ato r inte
nde. d, alth oug h his wil l did•not exp ress
-. -· ly say so that
!he testator inte nde d, aah~ugh his wil l did . ........._
not exp ress ly say so, that if A_~ii e...d_leav
h~~e~
~ g chi ldre n,
the ..@ illJ id_ g~t o the in. Inte res ting ly, bot
h~ __Co_y rt of AQPe; l _and H~: i~c of
Lor ds
decided that the wi ll cle arly g av e A no m?_
r~ th~ a-li_fe i12te rest _in the hou ses and ~a~e no_~
hing to
her chil dren . Co
__ nse que n -tl y, wh.en A ___die__d lea
_ vin_g chi.ldre n, - the- hou
. ses dev olv ed .. upo n the
'.estitor~s res·d d ~ . - the nep hew s Bo th cou
,. - ---- ---- ------~
1 uary ev1 see s 1. e.

~. ~ ~hildren to benefit he w oul d ha,,e said

so.
·
rts hel d tha t if the te§l l,t q..r had des ired
---
 . pplication of the Princi
.rnechanica 1 a . . Pl~
. . f e that can resu Jt from ~~~ to i!E,_putS,_!,...:.:..;;;...-------
: a meaning to a will that \v a~
Despite the obvious mJUS ic ainst the tende )'_ _ ~4 It also acts as_. a cav_eat again .
. . • to guard ag ~ tent10ns. - .. St
the rationale behmd it~ - = - - - - -by defeat h~_!.. d phrases carelessly With
- - - - - estator and there __ . . -· . words ~n _ ---- - - --- Gut
never intended by the t - - - - - - d agair!§L2:!s..!Pg- __
- ,-,:c:::;--:;;ih:;;.i· ;:jh 1mus t be warne -- --- · s·
tator's true 11; ~
sloppy dra~ers, w c -
· t nt1on
~ h exnress th~ t~~- - - -
considering __.,.___.t !:Y- .:.:.r:-~--
whether 0

- - . . Natural Sense. I J
f. Words arf (;onstrue d. •?1 .
their Q~d1na1)'.'. J ~ON~ •,v--
/_ '"j'~ .
1 -. .,;r<' f1Vr \"'I v 0 ~ r , J ~ d,,,..c.-..f rr> . regardl ess of wheth..::r the construction Wi\\
1 1..,.. v '-l)JC,

W d . .
their pnmar
y meaning, - -~~-:-::==~G;:::
or s m a w1·11 are attributed
- . Rashida B eg1 ,n1 V'>· · Administrator en era/ c111d
< produce a capricious meani!lg (see Rule )( .
9
. B lay N1h1ll P, 11
s·. Newnham Worley VP and Pearson Ag_
er (1951) 18 BACA 102 (Sir arc . . .d that there is a presumption in
. (1907) AC 225, it was sa1 ~
CJ)). In Gorringe vs. Ma/J7.\tedt . of the words' shoul9 be applied. In R.e
-- . . and usual meanmg -
,i"\ - 0 ; dllnstruing a will that the 'o.-<lma,y - - - ---: J) the court was asked to construe
_,<- . ~ - . " , .. , ,f (1972) EA 522 (S11npson .
..--::: .&Jphael Puh!,c 7rmle, '-'· Rap/u ~ - _ , B th testators were found dead in a
. . . h. , 01· of us dvU1g_tQ~er · 0
two wills contammg the P ,ase _ able to detennine who died first. It was
locked room with bullet wounds, the pathologist was un . .
- that the testators did not mean dymg
held . at precise · -
-~- IY-the
- sa·
- 1-11 e 1· nstant. The court concluded that
• · · -- - ·--
the testate,~ died together w1tlµn · 0 f-- the
. . t~ !."e~_EJ_&. nhrase-in• their will.
- "-"-~ ~ ) me wor,
,/

JV - f\ne.r,.I, 'Crnohar<\~J. ~ l .') Ir ('(\ "'I , '., . ,''.,~,

. ,,,,
c1fCU1,._
- A naraz·
"'In Lr.
z 1v1useraza (,/.a 1111·110 r b,v
--✓ hz's nextfiriend/ 1 Mohamedtakz
------ A. P. Champsi vs. lvlohameclali
. ,___ """" •• • . . . • _ •mothe
Nazerali Jiwq anti-ethers (1966) EA 117 (Wicks J) the court was called __~? on to construe the
cl; use 'in addition to thjs.,.,,ill' in a codicil to an earlier will. It ;,,,as contended that the testator
·---~ - i
was attempting to make further dispositions 'in addition' to the one-third willable prope11y under
.. - ..... meanu
Islamic law and as this exceeds that one-third the codicil was therefore void. The court held that
ReM<:
looking~ the co~i~il as a w~ole QY. the_\3/ord§ 'in addition to this will ' the testator intended that
the codicil."'."~!o be read with the earlier will and by the words 'the following addit~ the

_____
testator intended to add to the provisions of the prior wil I.
, r/
techn
However, if on reading the will as a wh 0 l - - - . . f 112).
e or on mvestigatmg the habits and c1rcumstances 0
------
the testator, it is evident that he used a a . . - - -: . ~ _____ .
own,- the court may interpret it in this s P. rticul~ ~ 01 d or phrase 1n so1ne special. sense
.. .. of his
- ----~-~--:.:...:.::..:.::- -2._~l 0Esecondary sense provided that the word or phra>C
.. ' .
 • ·"' I

\ \ ,. f"' lh~J y., lh . i""'.J ~ -' V

,
'. hi3ll\;~~1-. ~
~ tL ~ i)ui'""" ~ P9 f L-I' I
, - y ,, . ,._,r '
~~
·, ., "- ~ t ~

js c a ~ tl
.
able of carrymg such
h th
ed from, 1roug e
a meaning. There are t
=- .
app 1ica
.
tion of the
wo
I);~

wa ys
.
m
· () ~0

.
\,.
. .
wh ich the gen era l pnn c1p le ma
.
depart . 'ct· . y be
.111 where the ord ma ry me ani ng does t ICtionary J?rinciple' and the use of a secondary
111 e8J1 g .,, - · · - n2_m,ake sense. - •

·,-tionarYJ2[incip1e app lies in circum

fhe d i ~ . st
· ances where the testator has set up
will by def ini ng wo rds he use his own dictionary
jn th~ s in . .
-- -· · - ~ a,t:t!Q,Jlq._t...~ ay. . .
1as a defimt1on cla use say ing The pnnc1£!e would app !_y 1f the
restat~ - - h .
. ow P~ ular~ .,g ~r.e .lJ.s...e,d..inJ bf will.
iII
'd ~ Where the ordinary me ani ng doe 's not k
ma e s~nse, a secondary meaning
which makes sense can
be~1inoli~d· In Re__Sm alley ( 1929) 2 Ch 112 l ·
. · l ·
., · .
w 11c 1 illustrates the pow er of the .
word in a 5,! ~d,!!_ry_Sen_se wh en the court to mte rp.ret a
surround_ing_Q_i,;fumstances of the
-
testator show tha t he use d
it with that par tic ula r 111 ; ani ng . In •·•~ --- · - - - ··
this cas e a testator bequeathed a11 - -

bis pro per ty to 'm y wif e E.

~ The wo ma n nam ed bel iev
ed her sel f to be his wife and wa
s gen era lly reg u ; d as su)ch bu t
in fact , h~ _cor:mr nte d bigai12.)'
in marrxi.q_g~ r, for he wa s alread 4
x ma rri ed ta ana11ler wo ma n.
On ;Tdence of th~ e .su n-o un din g_cir
9y_mstances, the Co urt of Anp.¥a
------
•
l coustrue<Ltb...e_.¥LQrd "w ife "
to mean ''re put ed" as op po sed to _ _ .:..; .t
"la wf ul" wif e, for the cir cum sta
nce s sh..o ... ~at he had use d
!he words in thi s sec on da ry sen se.
- · - --- --
circumstances sho we d tha t the
In Thorn vs. Dickens (1906) WN
=-~___,_......,,._,.
tes tat or . r~f err ed .!O his wif e ~as
54, evi den ce of sur rou ndi ng
. "mqj:h er"_so tha t a b 5qu est to
'mother' in his will wa s tak en to
be a beq ues t.to her.

~Where a wo1:d.h as_ 111o r:_c than on e

meaning t!}.~ gGpe~cll r:½!t~, th~tF~i:<J
§_ ~re ~gi~~!l- the ir o~ nar y

-
meaning, cannot be app lie d. (R e Ev

Re Mellor ( 1929) I Ch 44 6). ~4

ere tt (19 44 ) 176 , Re Ba rne s' Wi
ll Trust (1972) 1 WL R 587 , ,

Where special or tec hn ica l wo rds are . ·11

1!s~d.J!1 a wi , th ey are presumed to be employed in the ir
---- - - ---• --- -~ .
technical sense, unless the co nte . .
xt cle arl y ind ica tes t he co~ trary (see rule 8) (Re Cook ( l 948) Ch.
, ,, .... _ _ , _ . · ·.
....,
..... ). Such technical wo rds may •
als o be con ru_st
ed a sec on i;
dar
.
y sen se if the will provides
:.~ . - -- ·
· ,:cicnt evi dence that this is the sen . hich the tes tat or use d them.
se m w ,
---
 ~ 1' •I' --~- I'-• · J# r

I ~ (.".'.j"~ _, (\
f · JI tf'u~ 1
W ~~o,..::. o1~'
Whole
fl~
. mus t be Read as a
The WIii entire w1·11 (Rashida Begum vs. Admi11i,~t,..Cito~ co(
t d from the .. p Sir Newnham Worley Vp anq
. be coUec e . c lay N 1)11 11 ' fol
f onstruct10 -· . - .. -- -- ---:-----,_,: Clt' ~
·ng of clauses is to ACA 102 (Sir Bar . n is to give effect to the testat
The meam 51) 18 E dC(
Genera/and another (19 ount puipos~ - in a will is to be asc! '!•inect f
Since the param~ of any cl~use - . . . . --...; rcini
Pearson Ag. CJ)). • ·11 the mean~ - . ll Walje vs. Alzbhcu Hcyz and <.inoth
din the wt ' l Rehemtu a . er
intenfum as exp~ . . lation (Abdul a ·1 n Ag. CJ and Hayden J). l'h
,__
the entire document and not m~ o Whitley CJ, Mark-WI so e
6 (Sir Nonnan
(1943) 10 EACA din relation toe ach other.
.. fthe will must be constm, : ___ - ---
prov1s10n_s_o ---------~---
- -~ -- : I.a bl e or mutuall -
. . . ·e,_c...ULLWJ. y inconsistent
- to tht
· visions ate J J.'.P · 1 2) (R u
Howeve1,. whe1e. two -clauses or p 10 . ther the last on e prevails (see ru e e 11anz111011d

~
t tl ~-- h'en otion in the last
I ,'0. exten 1at they cannot possibly stand toge. . . lies. mt ____ that the
- later
· - clause -..
e:.:, · al for this 1u e1 · --
"'~1 ·, 0 938) 3 All ER 308). The ratw~ e . d b Lord Greene MR m Re P .·. ?tter 's Will
~ . l has been describe y ~-- ~
& expression of the testator. The Ille that the courts try not to ap.12)y the ru\,
_., Trust (l 944) Ch 70 as a 'rnle of, desfilllr
. ' . Case law shows __. - - - - ~

~ .~ . ----
at all (Re Alexander 's Will -Trusts {(1948) .2 All ER 111).
(A.JO , -:-1 ~...,____,.f-Cc;,. e., c,,..) • . .
I,'-"
_,,I 1 \!
Cl~ ~developed to tI-~~-~~-c
m t II1at .where ' looking
" at the. will
. as. a-whole, 1\ looks
--::.
~
A arently a rnle has
PP that the .testat_or
like - - intended
- - - the
-- fa]!_~l,tu..s.e to, app 1Y, the presumption
•- · · ·that-- - ✓clause
the latter

prevails should not be ?EPlie2, (Re Bywater (1881) 18 Ch 17).

·The will must speak forJ.tscl~ qi.~..},;,- ;,, ~ ;\·.c-, , -'._. ·•';, \ i,Z,P f .J., U \ l
w:l 1
; -~< :. ·
As general rule, courts must ascertain the testator's intention from the words of the will itself
. 44 . r ,.,·•~ • · ,.. ~" ,. • ~-.. -

(Colclough vs. Cocker ( 1917) 7 EALR 120 (Hamilton CJ, Murison CJ and Pickering J), Rustonifi
Kersasji Khursedji Sidhwa vs. Dinshwa Ruttonji Mehta and others ( \ 934) \ EACA JS
(Abrahams CJ, Lucie-Smith Ag. CJ and Home J)). This is because the construction of wills is
ab_o_u_t .....
as_c_ert_a_irn
_·n....,g the testator's intention as ex d• h . . '"' (1943)
- ·-- - - · " - presse 1n t e.w.111. In Perrzn vs. 1v1organ
AC 399, ':'.ird Atkin remarked that 'the sole object is ... to ascertain from"'ihe wili'the testator's
intentions' . !Ii - ------- ~ -
- _ _ _ _ .....,._...~◄
 ,v- (111\.~.' -
"--' °'1'[\'11'.l f~\;\"\
·- • ~

··: f' ,.# l

' \~ \
~ ,(~~,..; ~ •-1-\r ' { " "\-

\, .\~r :•t "; ) (' t~t ~-,

0 ~'(~;
" ~~- :S.)O'tt
., 60\ . .
ttel, pub lic 1 rustee vs. Rap hae l (l 9 ) E
r:~~~ '(" 0 ~ t Y?.
J?t1P /:1 72
cs· "- J ~ '?-- ~ .V · · /
nstrue --- --
·
/?~ plu ·as e ' or of us dyin g to"'iet h ,
A 522
. imp son J), the_cou1t was asked to ,e~,w
co~ ether in a lock ed room and who - er cont aine d in the . - - ·- . -- .
11nd tog 1 d ct· ~ - will s of two testators who were
.· . ---~ iecl from bull et
fo ~ i c d toge ther w1th
1:-- -- -- _.,
m the mea nin ~- . - ·
dcce,is~ wou nd8 · The C.Qu_rt foun d_that the
. .
_..-,,--- Ju··1se ·dxm(r toge ther ' did --t ~ ?---~.:.~.~_phr ase in
· --· --·- .thei ·1
urt, tlW p__;.- -- -- ~- --·· ··--- ---2 . r wi ls.. ln the opin - .
ion of the
co . . :-=----- d had in mind was de atl1 . ti: !2..m ~an _dyin g prec isel . ,. . . ., .
dece ase~ ~ .. . . y at the sa~ ~Y~~tan t of time , wha t
r/JC~ -
-- · - J 10. i e-sau1e ai · • sh .
· _, i:....c.ta , ro.ad..ac,c,;1g - · -- ~
ent, sh_iJ? _coll ision or simi lar
~ -
. about wha t the tcst Gtor inte n I d
t
Jt 1s n~ - - - -- ·- ~ c_~ · to dO w~e n they mad e
• iitv or a del1c1c nc y
thei r will . Whe re ther e is an
lo the on the fal' ·u ·- . .
_1e_ w, , no cxtrms1.c ev1d
a1111 / . ~ ,
1
. ·- ~ c of tl . ·
, tor 111 ay be adm itted 1,;.g. o t the desc
enc~_.as to the inte ntio ns of the
171 0 11 I npti of
1cs1a- - - - - - _._on _ ~ pe~. on 01. prop erty '1:
G.
_ . . .
the w ill_ 1s so vagu e that
e last 11ie1: = -~~:,,~ope rt y to \:Vho~: i_t. c:~.~~ appl
.,, _Y.:...tl2_c _6_~9,:!~,~t will be void for unce rtain
ty (see
Wifl Rule 25).
........_
· rule
,,,,,-
[I CFeat 1;- (194 5) Ch 343 , a t~ r bequ<:.~!1e~ w oo to his SCIY.§l,~~ ->f.~.~~ill in my employ" .
Th .erva nt was conscri pted into the _arm y and
was still serving when the tes~ ;~;-di; d. E~id
... , . - . . -· -~· ... ··
ence
.
oks
1 was addu ced that sho 1il y befo re he died, the test ......

ator had affirmed to one of his executo; s that

he-
use ----
wished this legacy to stan d and rega rded the
- servant as still in his ~mp loy~ e; t.· -it-~vas held
- - ... . that , •; •

such evidence was not ad miss ible to pro ve

that the testator inte nde d the serv ant to· hav
etne

There are, however, circ.wJ1s.tanc~s where c.

~!E.~-~ tS....~Y..icl_~nce of the testator's int ~o n is
;lf admissible in con stru ing wi !!_s. J hes e ci rcum
stan~es are whe re. ;;~- ~~~ ~~; ;• rule apprr:;s,
the
,j f WQ[_ds are ambi guous -on the ' f{~e of the
~ ill, there is lat~I_:!.!_12:~guity or any part of the
_:ill is ~
8 meaningless.

) ln uddit lon to ascc rtain i ng th e inte ntio n of the

testator fn.m1 the will, the <.:uurt nlso has to
sec
s W hether tlle ·i t
w1 can 1J C carn·ecI 11110
· ef-.c:e
1 ' ct con sist entl y with the ru,l es_g .L law. In
• Walif _.,
...,.- -.....
Conm,is7:f01';;,,. of the c~Jia;,,-,;nd
Protectorate ~JKen; a vs. Alim oha med Ali Nahdi
Executor of
oi«\

!he IY1// f . . .
<? A1.slw b! n t1 Sha ft,. deceasee,l (19 51) 18 EA CA 86 (Sir Newnham Worley VP,
: , :f
~an-Smith .I A and De Lestan g J) the testatrix, a .
M~sli~ ';2117.an , gave a ho~ 1~r w1\l to
-~
 t ld tha t ~lt119ugh lslatnic law
It was 1e ~
wh ich -it stood,. t ow ner shi p, the s~ 1c_wa P~t1 .
tjJ$_JwicLon-- . in dif fer c,!1 s inc a . '11~
a mosque .ipo~ ~ -~
~ n to be Jeg ~ h hou se alo ne wa s fou nd to be invar
.._nsl&t y111
ho~ d it stand~ . ion of t e ~\
. The dis pos1t rov . . I{! Qh, tldf l
d Titles Ordinance. - -h ; the express p isio ns of the L_9lld .Titles O cl' ,~
with the~ .
her fot1;nd t a · . ~ r '11a11 \V11(
inte---
stacy- re~ Ited · It was furt .
. -:- - the matter_11 ~
had ousted the Islamic · s1t10n on efft

----- --
il{(a) The : :chair ru~
p~- ~ .
pro

f\~ - tes .- .
ut itse lf in th~__ . tat__or'..s po sit ion at the tnn e he or she
_ . . . -·-- - -
In construing the will the co~ llla(!~
f tl e will its elf (Boyes vs. Co
their will, in order to understa~d--
the words o 1 - - - - ok (188CYfr2r ch I) 53)
-- -- -~ - ~ . A
· -- . • ·s so that th~ 9.9 urt • can ma ke its elf ~w ~rc of t~e facts that 'W .
The objective of the exer::1 :: I -· _ . - . f ~ etc 5Lll
. 0 f the execut10n the will.
known to the testator at the tun °
e

The annchair rule is used mo st to identify the. hen efi cia i:y or
com mo nly the. sub jec t matter of the
. . Ve
gif t.~ t is applied by the com1s . . the wil l withou,t ref ere nc e --
by con stiu mg _to _t~ surroundino
~ ' .
....- . - . . _. ~
oc
. nt
circumstances and applym g the appare effect .of.. the__ wi ll to the SUlTOUndmg cir~m
stances to
_ - nc
ascertain that the w1l. l 1s
. . t d acc ord anc e wi th the cir
bemg cons _!:!.~....1-11 cu ms tan ces wh ich prevailedat
~-- --

------
- - - -- c ::i
the tirn e when the will was made.
¾ - -r- -

This rule can only be used t~ (ci

con fin n the app are nt ~ff ect of
a wi ll or to sh~ lig ht on vagu
tem1s. It cannot be used to alte -::::.--._!" ~ - · • .,,,. e
r the effect Qf )he w.on;is use d
in the wi ll if tho se wards are
and unambiguous. The ann cha clear A
ir rule cou ld be use d to ex
pla in an un cle ar ter m (Ricke
Turquand (1848) 1 HL Cas 472 tts vs. 1 m
). (Kell vs. Charmer (1856) 23
Be av . 195, Na tio na l Socie9
the Prevention of Cruelty to Childr 1for
en vs. Scottish Na tio na l So cie
ty for the Pre ve nti on of Crn elry
for the Prevention of Cruelty to A
Children).

(b) Ambiguous words S(

s1

t
17See also Khatijabai vs. Kassam Sun Ci
der ·i S ..
Newnham Worley VP and Sir Hug .
h Ho?n1et;r and oth ers (1955) 22
EA CA 30 1 (Si r Barclay Ni hill
P, Sir T
 ,ords ,ire ambiguous on th· · f. ,
1 ere \,\ - ~ - . - · - · - - -- ,. ace of the ·11 .
i;11 -· 1 . h ...,--~- w1 e1tl .
. . ·ble to exp am t e words used W -. ..,_, . ··~-• , ier direct or circu . .
11 ssI _ ... • - - - -· .. · ords are . mstanttal evidence is
11 dJ1 · ·' d d h saic1 to b · · · ...
_,,. the wor s use ave more tha e ambiguous on th f .
vJ1ere __ -- -- -·. -:-· • . _~ one normal . e ace of the will
111
i ~ -;-where the words used arc ---~-·-- e~ning, as in the terms 'mo , d ,
effect:,:__--

P~ -tombigui~

(c) I , ~ • ~
~~!b~::~D
----·-·· ~ - - - - ~..,,. , qually applicable t t

1 • - ~ ,; -~;
.
".J _
ney an my

:~,o~):~e::ons
.l':! \ 1"
~r, items

,St, 1'IA ..,

of
flJJ.-..!::>
!e ~ r ~e-~~
tent ambiguity occurs where a will . , .
l. A 1a . -- - is ~1~b1guous not on it f . .
. unding circumstances, for exan · ·- s ace, but 0;2~_!.!.1 tbe -l!ght_of the
simo . '- ip 1e where a testat .
r•a"'nno ,: J!ld the testator had sever•->) . I or ~Ives property to 'my neQbew
0nY o ---- - - u nep icws b th
_,--_ J"ves his 'Volk ~ -b- ·· · Y., _ s name. Ano ther example is where he
testato1 ea - . . swagen cetle to my dau rh . ·' -...._
~ _ , " :-· _.JL.~
1 , and the testator had more than one
Volkswagen beetle . fh1s type· of nmbiguit is ·11, . . . •
~ "" _. . _ ~ Y < so ccilled eqmvocat10n. Equivocation not only
occws whc1e tilt:: desc11pt1on fits two persons or th · . _ _.,.,., - - --
_... _ _ _ _ . mgs exactly, but also where the description is
not in all respects totally accurate (B!!imeltvsXT'::".t II , •
_ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ . 856) 2 k
.- -;--
· & J --- -~ - .
· lll .~ 1a
.
740). lf equ1vocat10n (,

cannot be soh~ed with .th e nrd of extrinsic evidence the ·1~t ·11 f: ·1 " .
,--- - - - . . , gr w1 at 1.or unccrtamty.
... - ~ • ,-,11 .. ..._ r..mw.,-,.1.i.u;,- ...,,.._. ,.c, • ....:_.._..._.....,"'-..i.___ ,..,,._

Meaningless u royisions
(d) __.

. Yfl.!!t,S .~~~si_c evidence give any

A mean ingless prov1s10n 1s one where the c~-~t\ ,_c, ~rw. ~t

-
meaning to the~ H"d or phrase (Kell vs. Clzar--,,-zci,~~•-. ,
. - '

A rrovision of a \vill cannot be said to be meaningJe_s_~, si1npJy_bycause the provision seems

. ~---.....--........-- --- .....

pointless, in the sense that it has no effect.

....
So if a testator was to provide ' I give nothing to my
son ', the clause would not be meaningless and extrinsic evidence wotild not be admissible to
suggest that the testator meant anything other than to make no provision in her will for his son.

Extrinsic evidence is no t admissible on the basis that a provision is meaningless, in order to

~ . . . . . .,. . ~ - - ----- --h......... . . . ,. ,. . . .,. ___ . . _. ,.._ 1# . .

:omplctc a blank space in a wi ll. For instance, if a legacy provided 'I give my son Kamau ... '
- ............................. ....., - '-...,.:A

:he ration;Te f·or the rule is that the purpose of admitting extrinsic,, .evidence is to assist in the
 t a bla nk sp ac e. Int erp ret
1not int erp re ati on
. d ars ua bly on e cat &1\Q\i\
interpretation of the wi ll,
'111 ~
be of a ph ras e as a whole .
be .
. I t ev ide nc e maY . . led as to the cir cu ms tan ce s in
. rin
( Th e on ly exception to this p ciple 1s tia - -►-- -
lp the co urt to asc-e \Vh iti.1
de a wi ll, so as to he-
••

. ne . '
the tes tat or was si.1ua ted at the t11
_______
he - =--- · .
ma .
g it .-- :-
-
.
--
"b t dd
.. tta1\'\ ti.
dde (o impute__to..-his_ c 110 sen wo rdi ng e.·n · is ad1ms
·1
~
me an mg he mten
s1
.- -- -e -o- a uc e evidf'n lit
-- - - 11cc a:
.. . or at his de ath in or de r
th rs"f T - r h~ e ma de the w~ . . . to asc en . ~
to ~ - -·=;rt y at the t11~: 11 · a1n, t
-- --- --7 he ref~-ers--to- th1. . .ho us e.No __G 29 ill-
La n.g at. a-e sta te bu t th ll
what pro pe rty the will refers ~ ..-- -
e.g. I . etc i~ 1
. . ..
- ~ aif eb i--i-s-· nu n1 be r 09 2 m
·
a cle ar ev ide nc e tha t the. 1 ho us e lJ.e .ha d 111 La ng ata estate , th·
on Y _. p
. . . . -- --f··:·Re Smalley Supra). i~
ev ide nc e 1s adm1ss 1ble - Rr:; · ' ,. \ fi
') r , ~ ,
\\ -5 J>e r;, "· ~ .-1 }'?~r •, ~ ('a .I 5
(I', JJ)
( 3 scertaining the Su ✓
bj!!;.!,Yattcr of Gifts
1

. 1
Pa rag rap h 3 of the First
Schedu le pro vid es t11a t, as
. regard (i n·~ y, a wi ll sp ea ks from the dat
-11!!11!!111111
--
... _ - ·- - - - - .. e
ot:.d_cath unless a contrary • • • b
I wi ll. A gif t of 'all my sh ar
011 a0~e ~1s . Y tie es ' wo uld be take
~
1~
... _.- - -- -- -- --
to ref er to afl the sh are s ow. d~b tes tat or at the da te of his . - n
ne Y a .... - de ath , ra th er th an_l~_~mg crmfined to
the sh are s which he o~ ,k
__1!;_e d ate on w I11·c h he .ex ec ute d bis .wjJ l. Pa ra gr an h
_ !t..-.:1
sti tes that with refere ~ce to_ .,..,-.:_;~ 3. however: '
s_?ec~ ~ ~i!~s-~~ -g~_s_i~s, the
pr es um pt io n is th at the wi
the date of its actual executi ll sp~~ as at
on. v.._
- " ----- -- .

In in the Matter of.1!1c Estate

oflvo Murray M lirton, Dece
as ed (1938) 18 ( l) KLR
Sheridan CJ)) wh 65 (Sir Joseph
ere the testato: ~irected th e
tru ste es to ho ld pr op er ty
up on tru st fo r his son until
the son attained 1~ ioJ.ity ag
e, it was held tha t the so n
to ok a ve ste d or co nt in ge
property at the testator's de nt interest in the
ath and on att ain ing ma jo
rit y ag e wa s en tit led to
transfer oft.fi e property to his a co nv ey ance and
name.

------
I

" A co ntr ary intention refers

__ to wh ere the pr op er ty · s
1 de se n•be d m
. a
. . -0 866) LR 2 Eq 669, Re Sikes (192 ve ry sp ec1. fi1c way (R e Gib~ son
7) I Ch 36
to Paragrap h 3, difficulties oc 4). In dec1. dm
.
g wh et he r th er e is a cont'ra ·
cu r h h ry 1µtentio· n
· w ere t e te st ator uses te - -( · · --......_
nn s su ch as\ ' no w' and 'at present\,
 uch
er :,~ w or ds am ou nt to
S
1 --- - - --- - - - - ~ a
~~
1
etl:-- ..,, co nt ry ·
¢1 th e re fe re nc e to th e re se -..;;.;.:ra
ether nt f , in te n ·
-:--,--.!!~
,~J1 at te r of th e specifi nne 1§ co to •·th e .
•ect n1 c gi ft If : . -. .E st ~ ei_:_at1o n of p
,;bJ ~
-~ - --
.. , · 1t 1s th · ~ d as an .
91 5) 13 9 LT Jo IS ). R ' . '.• ~' .1'.. - . es se nt ia l ar. t ar ag ra ph 3 de pe nd s on
flt fo OP<;r at e a s;; -· ." th ~
(r,,fOS 6) - e W1//1 .\· (191 l) 2 . of e d_,: .'oription of
2 <:n t~a: y in te nt io n to th e
Ch 26 3 H ., Pa ra gr a h 3
' ep hl lrn -vs ·. Sk · · P ·
irv in g (\ 85 8) 32
. t that th e te st
fne tac -- -- -: -- at or, af. ter th
1y th at
ropel...::-----=Jo--.nn s the- su bj ec t mate ~ ecution of th
.
P .,,g that ara I·aph '"'
__ ._ ter-- of-.a :- gi--
ft d-- e will, acquires a dif
_, op er at-es -- -in- -k - - . . ~eren . . th
{In P g to - ---~ oe s no t t interest m e
dl rg
j'
- . - . -
a e the w·ll - ·- necessanly prevent th • -
1gJ 13 C h D 35 9) . - - ... e
___

sax O - - ....,.... ____~ - 1 -- ·- -· -- -- ~-- co rt t·

t !1 ( --. speak from the da te of death (S u ro m
ax to n vs .

fI1e effects of the re pu bl ic at io n of ., . .

-· -
er at es to m ak e th, e ... ·W l 11 ne
~- •
agraph 3 op - ed t0 be co
par, - - • ~ - \v.ll nsid· ered 1· th
obviously th e re pu bl~ _ _ 1 sp ea k as to the -~~-... - .·, ~-- e 1ght of Paragraph 3.
· 1·
lte deatl1, ic at ·· f -- ~ ~ ' - . . . · · pr - •
If
- ~-~ - io n o th e will h o~ er ty fr om_ the da
· ··--If-· -- -- --·-te- of the testator ' s
c:
ause ~ ry in te nt io n is in op as no
~n ei ·a~t. ·· · - - . _. .• ef fe ct Pa ra
bec . ·.1 .-t~~e ion t11e will · h 3 d
Re...C'11e,·) grap oes not apply
. - s genera11y take - - - -
.. . -0 1
0 the codic11 . ,1\ c \ ' . .
- . n to speak from th

-
In Jn. th e Matter. o f th e
E st at e o. fIva M ur ra
y M urton, Decea
- . e date of

Shendan CJ)) 1t w as sed (1938) 18 (1) K L

st at ed th at w he re R 65 (Sir Joseph
pr op er ty is gi· ve n t
question w he th er th es e o se ve ra l ~e rs on s co
pe rs on s ta ke as jo nc ur re nt ly th e
in t te na nt s or te na
context of the w ho le w nt s m
· co rm no n depends on
i ll ; th ey prima fa ci e th e
ta ke as jo in t te na nt s.

Ascertaining the Benef

iciaries

Paragraph 3 only app lie

s to properi: y. B,.efer~
.! Q ...ll~9.P i~ at e a_s,.~a
refer to people at the da _g_eJ).~ral ru le copstr
_,_, te the will was made, ue d to
unless there is a cont
shamba boy' would re fe . . '- . ,
rary intention. A gift
. ·. ~ to 'my
- r to th e testator 's shamba '

_ .-.-
bo y at the date of th
·)'oungest child o f m y ~t-..· e will. A gift to -the
ni ec e K an in i' . and th ·,.w :.~r _
...........rr
. . . ... -. _.
e youngest child of K
W as Vvnyua. Ou t W ay an in i alive at the date of th
ua ha d d ied by_'.}ie e will
date of ~ 1e testat ~ (s
;enCrarrule that a will is ; ;~ tr ,.;!;.ath. The conse(\Uen
c.l:S of the
ue d referring to peop
le at the date of the w
ill, is that the gift to
 ~~ / .f..(F(' . i
-{:7
l ,C other c Il 01 ~ (!(!,
ildren alive at the tcsta, .,
'fK-Oini 11as --~-•~ --- ►• • - • • ill\,.
·u lapse,
t child WI
-
eve11 J- .....---
~ ·----- - - - -
-
Kanini 's younj"es - - h D 446).
_ d (l 88~7) 34 C
(Re Whorwoo . to the
~
cral rule that, as regards r t
g1.,;I1 _ c cr,11,,
0
t rary intentto . ,fs ( 1918) 87 LJ Ch 661, R.c,cJr. ~ A
ve a con . (Re Danll ~or, 'v!,
It is, howcve1'. po ssihl,: to. ha the date o f the will. 1
to people, a WI p·11 s eaks tram
7 A
Willis (18 71) Ch App !• . needs to be di sti ngu ished fro 1V
11
d te of the w1 ._.....,in that
Jfil the description_at the_ a f the will, but by the d~te of the leslato '
Where no person fu I s . . ~ at the date o . . . - .- - -- - r'
- - •-- - fulfils the descnption (Radford vs. Wzllzs). C
where a 1?,_e~ _ ..2...-. . erative to them
. .
death, that descnpt10n MS1 , become mop r
(

. o 1· a will occui. in
. t·elation to gifts where the relation S1up
1-:
A . . truct10n t . R
b of difficulties m cons d
ift JS ma e to children or remo er issue. egarct·
num er .
_ _ --~ ~ -•\lino
1
. specified. This is particularly so where a g - lly there is a presumption that th~ on)~
s . ·1 grenera ,
. . . .. · the making O1· gi 1s . . · - - - ·· - : -
V
·
relatwnslups refe11ed t~ rn . by affinity or mamage. A gift to 'all m
-- -- . ...- 1·elatives, and not relatives . " ~ y
persons to take aie blood . b ti r or sister of his wife. In Rashida Begi/

~
• ' 3 - . lude an females born to a r<:_lt:___ -
• -- - - . . ~ --..01
mece.,: :.:!,_oes not me _Y 951) -18 EACA 102 (Sir Barclay N1h11l p' Sir Newnh~
vs Administrator General and anothe, (1
·
Worley - n ..-
VP an d P earso Ag · CJ) the c Iause .'other
- - - -relations'
- was construed . to exclude
. the
testator's adopted daughter. It was s tate d that the ordinary meaning of the word- -'relation'
· • does
•- · -an
not mclude 1 . The ~
- ad-opted ch'ld p~~esumption can_ _ be rebutted by evidence
_ __ __of _a _
_contrary

mtent10n.
· : Tl1e pos1·t·on
1 reo·
0
u 1·ding relatives
1
· of half-blood is w1clear. It was, howev..er.~uggested in
Re Reed ( 1888) 57 LJ 790, that there is a presumption that relatives of half- blood are included.

Difficulties often occur over the use of the word 'children' or the tcnn 'issue'. Children includes

---
children en ventre sa mere (Villar vs. Gilbey (I 907) AC 139), and there is a presumption that the
tenn 'children ' refers tO immediate children. The presumption may be rebutted by evidence that
grandchildren and remoter issue were intended (Loring vs. Thon;as ( 186]) i Drew & Sm 491).
'Issue' technically means children, grandchildren and remoter descendants but in some matters,
'
the courts have construed the tenn to refer only to the children of the testator (Re Noad (1951)
Ch 553).
 gift is a gift to be div ide d
A cJas5.:;; -- - -
"7'rl
1ot1 11 1at eac h ind ivid ual get d
. amongst . .
1nd1
viduals Wh .
811 ~ f 1/ ~hs ~ 400- bo_ s epend .
ift o ~ o
_o ·- - - - · ··
0 to Mu . . -~.;·on· the n; : -
0 fulfil
b ·- ~~--- . a. gen
,
Ag ' · .. .."' er eral description, where the
. of ben . .
•thi rece ives d epe n d s on th re1th1 s child . . ... .
efic1anes fall mg- with ·•
in the class
t,4ure1 - - - - -- - ren is a
r e num ber of ch-:-il_d_ __ ___ c_1a_ss_ _?ift ·
0111 l"
- -~ --
. How muc h each child of
... at
•1 ren that
. . - - - - - - - - Mure1.thi has .
~sta tor' cJass gifts could (1f .it wer e not f - -- .. _
s - - --
. f
resentat1ves o an est. ate to 111a--k ~ ?!_...':,ass closin
rep -- -- --- -~--·- _ _ · e an ear-ly .ct·.- - g rules) make it d"ff
. 1 .· . 1 i1cu1t 1orc
Class closing r~ es are rules of con . istu but ion f h the personal
ve~i ~-n~e .._ ·-: ·- ··· .!?....! _~pr?12..e1j:y to
e>nship b~ giv en Jo the class.
distribute the esta te at the · eai·Ii ~st C)
~ __ __ • • , des ign ed to allow personal re2Lesentatives
lrdi ng Ppo rtum ty. Th - --~--~--..- -~- to
circulation or use for a lon g per iod of - ~~
. . e rule frowns on keeping property
....-.......-- .• . tune. The rationale b h. out of
0 niy o the ratwnale fo, the per pet uity .
t .· . e md the clas s-cl osm g rule is sim ilar
p1 mc1ple. It is h
l Illy act aga.inst tl1e inte . .
ntio ns of a tes tato . ' owe ver ofte n
' argue d t h at the rule s freq uen tly
beneficiaries wh om the dec eas ed int I,
d d
as the y hav e the rn .
en e to benefit. e ect of exc lud mg from the clas
s

the The class clo sin g rul es ozi gin ate fro
m th f
. e cas e o And rew s vs. Partington
Jes The rules onl y app l y to g ifts ma de (1791) 3 Bro CC 401
. by wil l d
1ry an ope rate so tha t the cla ss clo ses ·
which the first me mb er of the cla ss bec at the dat e on
. om es ent itl d p •
IO the nature of the g1 ft. e . rec1sely how the rule s ope rate
dep end s on

There are four types of class gifts.

(,11mmediate class gift

L This USUally takes the fon n of a gift say

'to the children of Akinyi'. If Akinyi
liv· --- - has a child wh o is
mg at the testator' s dea th, the class clo . - -• · ·
f ':--.. ses at the testator's dea th and includes all the children
0 -- . -- - - - ~ --· •;
Afanyi afive at tha t dat e (In the M ~tter
of the Estate of w J Bellasis, deceas
ed( l919: 2·1) 8
fALR 142 (Barth J). In Rusto mj i Kersasji
Khursedji Sidhwa vs. Dinshaw Rutton
( 1'
·--- - - .
ji Mehta and
,.1i£-n (1934) l EA CA 38 (A . . ' '°1"".c:;.:zt ! - ~ -
bra ham s CJ , Lu cie -Sm ith Ag. CJ and
Ho me J)) a direction in the
· .·: that a share be pai d to ' to Ru sto mj
i's children during the ir lifetime'
was construed as
, . hildren whoW
bO th those c _
ere l I'virHZ- at
,.,,-
t , death and those born sub.,"eq..
the tcsta ors ,. "~tit I()

meaning _ ) s EALR 142 (Barth CJ)

thatevent. d " eased(I 919 21 . d' . .. •llD:
_ _ __ , B 1,,ar;is ec . •ng an 1mme iate 11tc tnter... t " ~
a ,r11i5
~~e
W,J. el L , as g1v1 --s itq1.
theirqfta11111Y '
In In the Matter qfthe Estate chil. d ren of the marriage born before Or (II\i1~ '[\-'ftllll
to husband and- wife 'and. 'th a retnainder to any 'SJ
d wife w1 cllild
gift to the husband an ,,
the death of the testator. 1ater,
cbild

(b) Deferred class gi'ft year:

until
. 'toKwamboka, fio r rf w·th remainder to the childretlof
. . ~ the class
. testator's death, remains year
This would take the foon'n of a gift say I11'Idren at the - ---- .... Pen
t N•·~a 1k:.............. 0
I as no c ----··· - -
, - bsequently b
Nyake11yanya.' If Nyakenyanya . 1 d - - II- children su - ·- .orn .... ~ - enyanya. II
t · ~ the class c Ioses a t K warn bo kas
~
··1 Nyakenyanya dies, . an d mclu es . a . . -- b ka , death
uni . . d ti
1 ·1d b fore the ea 1 ot Kwam o ' . . . '
I h ·1
- - . - who ai·e alive at that date. t, owever,
Nyakenyanya has- a c u.- .e . -N akenyanya W1 I close a1
1 ~
and includes alJ the cluldren ° Y testat~r. If Nyakenyanya has no children ,
. - :wmn15olfa predeceases tI1e . .
the testator's n em1'fl"f"K · _ _ - -- ··- ··· ·- mains open until Nyakenyanya dies. (See1
or's death the c 1ass re .
K wamboka,s death or the testat . _' ceased ( 1919-21) 8 EALR 142 (Barth CJ)).
In the Matter ofthe Estate of WJ Bellaszs, de .

In Latif Suleman Mohamed vs.' K..J.. P.andya and others (1963) EA 41 6 (Sir Ronald Sinclair P,
Int,
Sir Trevor Gould Ag. VP and Newbold IA)
t~

(c) Contingent class gift \Vl

This would be a gift say 'to the children of Kimathi who attain 21 years'. If Kimathi has a child
in1
who reaches 21 years before the testator's death, the class closes at the testator's dealh and
is
includes all children of Kimathi alive at that date who subsequently reach 21 years. If Kimathi
~
has no child who has reached 21 years by the date of the testator's death then the class only
th to
'
closes when e first child of Kimathi reaches 2 I years and includes all children alive at al
date.
th gc
 ·nge nt and def err ed cla
~ CoJJ tl .
ss o1ft
~

' Q
. ~•ft
1)-' . woUld be both a con ting ent and ad
f/11 5 . . e f erre d , ·
lh~ for life w1th rem amd er t 0 h .
ll). tvft1lt1 58 gift. It co li ,
- t e chil dren f u c t<tke the form of a gift; say ' to
has reac hed 21 y O
ilfte r Jiild wbO . ears by the date f M Luv aga w ho attai.
c 1 tth · 0 n 21 years' . lf Luvaga has a
ter, the class c ose s a . is date . The clas s w·11 ulus a' d
Ja . s eath , or the testa tor' s death if thi
s is
·Jd reaches 21 yea rs who sub sequ ent} I then Incl d .
chi u e all children alive at the date the first
. by the date of Mu lusa ' s dea th . Y reac h 21 yea . .
yews . rs. If no child of Luv aga has reached 21
. t}le firs t chil d reac hes 21 yea rs a o1d that of the test ator . ·.
unt11 . if late r, then the clas s remains ope n
n a 1l chil dren ar
l Of years. ive at that date who sub sequ entl y reac h
21

lf - Ne. / -:)vJl¾<L ;"1 ~.\-a\L< l~.M .,,1c,I;.._ r

11, INT ES TA CY
at -\ IQ 'k~/ - p~:-:., j; ~i f J,, ~J-~ off,.
c,
It rNTESTAT E SU CC ES SIO N ,. . . . p"" ~ •),t ti--!..... I~, · , , i
~ P_(;( H+ t -~'I I
_jj

Introduction · w,f I, \l__iJ.1, I,,. i t_ .~~; ~e (' I '

1
, ..J. °' "{"\b -Jto~ '~ ~ C'
Intestacy occurs wh ere : a- perso n d1.e::i~~ !J:
: q
b/
out hav ing ma_? e a wUl, tne per son ' s atte
mp t to die
uesJale 1Jils upoo the inv; ~ dation. ?~)21.~.~ Uor
the per son rev oke s_his wil l and sub sequen
tly aies (0
ll'il~ hn\'ing m5u c ano the r w ill (see ~ec,tio~ of the Law of Suc ces sion Act) .

The rules of intestacy det erm ine the questio

n who is entitled to the pro per ty of the esta
te of an
intestate. Intestac y ma y be a tota l or par tial
. It is total whe r~he intestate l1as left no
- === - ..._ _
e valid wil l. It
ispa11ial where: J person fo i Is to incl udt! all -

t ----
Will decla red j nval id or a pat i of1 he
his pruperty~inJ1is o!hc r.wl-sc v~tlid will 01· Pru:
wil l is revoked or a pers~~ acgui!:_~s pro
\ ,)r \l\e
perty subsequent
tothe-~ kin r of th~ wil l (and the wi ll is am
-- -- --------. .,
g:-,\'eme-0 by the intestacy provision s or is sub
bul atory). The pro; erty not cover~d b~_the wil
l is

- ject to intestate. s1:i1ccession .