01 Oct: LJ: MHC 4968/20: GME Estate: Req for Info: Exec: M Steenekamp

* Marlise Steenekamp, Crawley Family, David Crawley, Dawn Meyer, Garden Route SPCA, Bruno MacDonald, The One Financial Solution, Isobel Rohwer, Marais Lamprecht Attorneys, Francois Lamprecht, Master of the High Court Capetown: Zureena Agulhas, George Svc Point: Yolanda van Milligen
* 01 Oct: LJ: MHC 4968/20: GME Estate: Req for Info: Exec: M Steenekamp
* Tygae: EoP Leg Sub: LJ v GME / EoP NWO SCO: EoP NTE GM: EoP NTE GMZA| EoP Axis MilNec Evac: Lotto: EoP v WiP Law, EoP v WiP  Academia, EoP v WiP Media, EoP v WiP Religion, EoP v WiP Charity, / EoP v WiP Neg.

From: Lara Johnson [mailto:eop-leg-sub@tygae.org.za]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2020 3:16 PM
To: ‘Marlise Steenekamp’
Cc: ‘Crawley Family: David Crawley’; ‘Garden Route SPCA’; ‘Bruno MacDonald’; ‘The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer’; ‘Marais Lamprecht Attorneys’; ‘Francois Lamprecht’; ‘Sonja Corker’; ‘Cherise de Wet’; ‘Master of the High Court Capetown: Zureena Agulhas’; ‘George Svc Point: Yolanda van Milligen’
Subject: MHC 4968/20: GME Estate: Req for Info: Exec: M Steenekamp
Attachment: 20-09-04_MHC-FIO_J84-Outstanding-Documents; 20-09-20_MHC-FIO_J238-etter-of-Executorship.

Marlise Steenekamp:
Marlise Steenkamp Accounts
The One Financial Solution

CC: Crawley Family: David Crawley:
CC: Dawn Meyer
CC: The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer:
CC: Garden Route SPCA:
CC: Master of the High CourtCT: Zureena Agulha

Ms Steenekamp:

MHC 4968/20: GME Estate: Req for Info: Exec: M Steenekamp.

Master of the High Court File: 4968/2020
Estate: Ghislaine Madelene Elliott.
Date of Death: 2020/03/04.
Place of Death: 18 Chestnut St, Heatherpark George

According to the Master of High Court Integrated Case Management System (ICMS) Web Portal [ICMS: 4968: Elliott], J138 Letters of Executorship Information Only [PDF: pp.01] document; you were issued Letters of Executorship on 20 Sep 2020.


The Master of the High Court Letters of Executorship were issued to you in the absence of any nomination from 03 March 2020 Roy Adoption heir [Application Contesting the Will of deceased filed with the CCMA: 1279-20: LJ v Estate GM Elliott: 28 May: CCMA Grg Filing: LJ v Estate Gill Elliott: PDF; 10 Sep: Upd Filing: WEGE 1279-20: LJ v EGME: LRA S 191(6) Applic: PDF]

My 03 March 2020 heir CCMA application requested the following from you: Applicant Executor: Marlise Steenekamp:

Request for Information [Doc D35] Q Re: MSteenekamp & Isobel/TOFS Exec Elliott Est decisions: If the Master of the High Court appoints The One Financial Solution as Executors of the Elliott Estate; will you conduct a transparent on the Estate Court Record written statements family meeting enquiry with Elliott family members and heirs and any parties with relevant information [Doc A1, A2]; into (a) SQWorms barter exchange agreement [Doc A4/D3; D9] ; (b) Lara-Roy Adoption agreement [Doc: A2, A5/D16]; to enable a fair lawful transparent enquiry into all available evidence to determine whether Gill’s relationship with Lara was of a ‘Thank You’ [Doc B1] or ‘Fuck Off’ [Doc C1] cheap labour barter exchange nature.
» EoP Leg Sub: 28 May: CCMA Grg Filing: LJ v Estate Gill Elliott: PDF

Request for Information:

Please confirm whether you consent or object to using your letters of executorship authority to conduct a §32 Disputed Claims enquiry in terms of [A] § 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953, and [B] Admin of Estates Act: § 8 Transmission or delivery of wills to Master and registration thereof; § 26 Executor charged with custody and control of property in estate and § 102 Penalties (1)(a) Concealing information purporting to be a will.

In terms of s 2(3) of the Act, if a court is satisfied that a document or an amendment, drafted or executed by a person who has since died, was intended to be that person’s will or an amendment thereto, the court shall order that the master accept that document as a will, in spite of the fact that it does not comply with the prescribed formalities.

MM Corbett, G Hofmeyr and E Kahn (The Law of Succession in South Africa 2ed (Cape Town: Juta 2001) at 58) note that the court does not, however, have a general discretion to condone non-compliance with the prescribed formalities. The wording of s 2(3) makes it clear that only in the event that the specific requirements are met and the court is satisfied that the document was intended to be the will of the testator, must the court then grant an order directing the master to accept the document as a will.

The requirement that the document purporting to be a will must have been drafted or executed by the testator has caused interpretation issues regarding the intended meaning of the word ‘drafted’ and has resulted in conflicting legal views. Some decisions have favoured the literal interpretation that the document must have been drafted by the testator personally, while other decisions have favoured a more generous interpretation of s 2(3).

The position has been settled in Bekker v Naude en Andere 2003 (5) SA 173 (SCA) where Olivier JA clarified the correct interpretation of the word ‘drafted’, following the literal approach. The court held that the document must have been prepared personally by the deceased, and a document could not be accepted as a will if it had been prepared by a third party. The court based its reasoning on the principle of interpretation that effect must be given to the ordinary, grammatical meaning of words, unless this would lead to absurdity, inconsistency or hardship.

The second definitive case on the interpretation of s 2(3) is Van Wetten and Another v Bosch and Others [2003] JOL 11581 (SCA). In this case the issue on appeal was whether the deceased had intended a document that he had written to be his final will or simply instructions to his attorney to draft one. The court held that s 2(3) clearly states that a court must direct the master to accept the document as a will once certain requirements are satisfied. The court accordingly held that – because the document had been created by the deceased personally and considering the surrounding circumstances, including the deceased’s conduct at the time of drafting the document – it was clear that the deceased intended it to be his will.

Although an electronic will, stored on a computer hard drive for example, which has not been printed or executed is invalid due to the fact that as it is not in writing nor validly executed, it can be saved by s 2(3). In Van der Merwe v Master of the High Court and Another [2010] JOL 26090 (SCA) an appeal was brought to have an unsigned document accepted as the will of the deceased. The court noted that the lack of a signature had never, in terms of s 2(3), been held to be a complete bar to a document being declared a will. The court considered whether the document was drafted by the deceased and whether the deceased intended it to be his will. The appellant provided proof that the document had been sent to him by the deceased, giving the document an authentic quality. It was not contested that the document still existed and had not been amended or deleted; and from the title of the document the court held it to be clear that the deceased intended the document to be his will. The court upheld the appeal, declaring the will to be valid.[SAFLII: Valid or not? General principles for challenging a will]

with regard to facts in dispute in Contesting a Will applications filed with Master of High Court and CCMA requesting:

[A] A family meeting enquiry in terms of Chief Masters Directive 2 of 2015: Appointments in Deceased Estates: authority to convene family meetings to resolve minor issues in dispute [CCMA: LJ v Estate GM Elliott: 28 May: CCMA Grg Filing: LJ v Estate Gill Elliott: PDF: Annex A: Application for Master to Convene a Meeting of 09 May 2019 Accepted Written Will Family/Heirs. & Encl. pp.01-15/71] and/or

[B] An Admin of Estates Act: §32 Disputed Claims enquiry with regard to (a) Lack of lawful authority to make Executor of Estate Decisions; (b) Failure to follow Disputed Claims Procedures Re Unfair Dismissal Terms; (c) Failure to follow Disputed Claims Procedures Re Claim of a Dog Adoption Will [10 Sep: Upd Filing: WEGE 1279-20: LJ v EGME: LRA S 191(6) Applic: PDF: Facts in Dispute: para.22-25/30; pp.11-16/67].

If you consent:

If so: Please clarify what information you request from me; and any specifics as to – hand delivered printed, emailed, signed affidavits, commissioner signed affidavits, etc – requirements you have with regard to me providing you with your requested information.

If you object:

Please clarify your reasons for your objection.

EoP – OKC TRC – Axis Alliance [31 Mar: EoP Upd: Sergey Lavrov: Re: EoP Axis Alliance negotiations] Honest Lives Matter [29 Jun: EoP Axis Alliance is an Honest Lives Matter culture] Negotiations correspondence is published at EoP Leg Sub [eop-leg-sub.tygae.org.za]


Lara Johnson, Pro Se
EoP MILED Clerk [EoP Oath PDF]
16 Taaibos Ave, Heatherpark, George, 6529

Sent per electronic notice to:

Executor: Marlise Steenekamp:
Marlise Steenekamp (marlise@theonefs.co.za);

Crawley Family: David Crawley:
Crawley Family: David Crawley (crawleydavid1@gmail.com);

Dawn Meyer.
Dawn Meyer: 072 569 5555.

Garden Route SPCA:
Garden Route SPCA (receptiong@grspca.co.za); SPCA George (educationg@grspca.co.za); Bruno MacDonald (brunomacdonald@gmail.com);

The One Financial Solution:
The One Financial Solution: Isobel Rohwer (isobel@theonefs.co.za);

Marais Lamprecht Attorneys: Francois Lamprecht:
Marais Lamprecht Attorneys (info@mllegal.co.za); Francois Lamprecht (francois@mllegal.co.za); Sonja Corker (sonja@mllegal.co.za); Cherise de Wet (cherise@mllegal.co.za)

Master of the High Court – CT: Zureena Agulhas; Grg: Yolanda van Milligen:
Master of the High Court Capetown: Zureena Agulhas (ZAgulhas@justice.gov.za); George Svc Point: Yolanda van Milligen (YVanMilligen@justice.gov.za)



Leave a Comment