Interpretation of Wills - Does Endumeni Case Apply?




Animus testandi, contextual interpretation, Endumeni; freedom of testation, objective interpretation, purposive interpretation, teleological interpretation, textual interpretation, testator, Wills Act


This article argues that the general approach to documentary interpretation articulated in Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA) (Endumeni) applies also to the interpretation of wills, subject to adaptation for context. It is argued that interpretation of wills and the application of an interpretation to a particular factual setting are coequal tasks. Each case must be decided on its own facts. The cardinal rule is the ascertainment of a testator's intention and giving effect thereto, provided that this will not bring about a violation of the law. It is argued that a court must put itself in the armchair of the testator and, after determining where the probabilities lie, it must infer or presume what the testator had in mind at the time that the will was created. Although intention is subjective, the interpretive process to determine a testator's intention is objective in form. It is argued that a court must, in every instance, understand the purpose for which it seeks to determine a testator's intention. This is so that it can undertake the correct enquiry. If the aim is to determine the meaning of a testamentary provision, then a testator's intention must be ascertained as memorialised in the written text of the will read as a whole, taking into account also the purpose of the text and its context. If, on the other hand, the aim is to determine whether a document is a testator's intended last will and testament, as is the case when section 2(3) of the Wills Act 7 of 1953 is invoked, then a testator's intention must be ascertained with reference to the document's purpose, taking also into account all legally relevant and admissible internal and external contextual factors. It is argued that all this is, as confirmed in Endumeni, consistent with the modern trend favouring an objective, purposive, contextual cum teleological mode of documentary interpretation.



Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Fareed Moosa, University of the Western Cape

Senior Lecturer, Department of Mercantile Law




De Ville JR Constitutional and Statutory Interpretation (Interdoc Consultants Goodwood 2000)

Du Toit F "The Constitutionally Bound Dead Hand? The Impact of Constitutional Rights and Principles on Freedom of Testation in South African Law" 2001 Stell LR 222-257

Glover M "A Taxonomy of Testamentary Intent" 2016 Geo Mason L Rev 582-595

Guzman K "Intents and Purposes" 2011 Kan L Rev 305-373

Kroeze IJ "Power Play: A Playful Theory of Interpretation" 2007 TSAR 19-34

Langbein JH "Substantial Compliance with the Wills Act" 1975 Harv L Rev 489-531

Michelman FI "Constitutional Authorship, 'Solomonic Solution', and the Unoriginalist Mode of Constitutional Interpretation" 1998 Acta Juridica 208-234

Moosa F "Understanding the 'Spirit, Purport and Objects' of South Africa's Bill of Rights 2018 J Forensic Leg Investig Sci 1-12

Vukotic M 'Influence of Objective Elements on the Interpretation of Will' 2017 Journal of Law, Social Sciences and

Wallis M "Interpretation Before and After Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA)" 2019 PELJ 2-29

Case law


Abram Estate v Shankoff 2007 BCSC 1368

Allgood v Blake 1873 LR 8 Exch 160

Perrin v Morgon 1943 AC 399

South Africa

AfriForum v University of the Free State 2018 2 SA 185 (CC)

Airports Company South Africa v Big Five Duty Free (Pty) Ltd 2019 5 SA 1 (CC)

Anderson and Wagner v The Master 1996 3 SA 779 (C)

AMCU v Chamber of Mines of South Africa 2017 3 SA 242 (CC)

Aubrey Smith v Hofmeyer 1973 1 SA 655 (C)

Bastian Financial Services (Pty) Ltd v General Hendrik Schoeman Primary School 2008 5 SA 1 (SCA)

Bato Star Fishing (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Environmental Affairs 2004 4 SA 490 (CC)

Bekker v Naude 2003 5 SA 173 (SCA)

Bothma-Botho Transport (Edms) Bpk v S Bothma & Seun Transport (Edms) Bpk 2014 2 SA 494 (SCA)

Brits v Hopkinson 1923 AD 492

Coopers & Lybrand v Bryant 1995 3 SA 761 (A)

CSARS v Daikin Airconditioning SA (Pty) Ltd 2018 ZASCA 66 (25 May 2018)

CSARS v United Manganese of Kalahari (Pty) Ltd 2020 4 SA 428 (SCA)

Cuming v Cuming 1945 AD 201

Curators, Emma Smith Educational Fund v University of KwaZulu Natal 2010 6 SA 518 (SCA)

Department of Land Affairs v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits (Pty) Ltd 2007 6 SA 199 (CC)

De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecution, Witwatersrand Local Division 2004 1 SA 406 (CC)

Economic Freedom Fighters v Speaker of the National Assembly; Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly 2016 3 SA 580 (CC)

Eke v Parsons 2016 3 SA 37 (CC)

Engelbrecht v Senwes Ltd 2007 3 SA 29 (SCA)

Estate Kemp v McDonald's Trustee 1915 AD 491

Ex parte Kock 1952 2 SA 502 (C)

Ex parte Maurice 1995 2 SA 713 (C)

Ex parte Porter 2010 5 SA 546 (WCC)

Ferreira v Levin; Vryenhoek v Powell 1996 1 SA 984 (CC)

Global & Local Investments Advisors (Pty) Ltd v Fouche 2020 ZASCA 8 (18 March 2020)

Gordon's Bay Estates v Smuts 1923 AD 160

Grobler v Master of the High Court 2019 ZASCA 119 (23 September 2019)

Harvey v Crawford 2019 2 SA 153 (SCA)

Independent Institute of Education (Pty) Ltd v KwaZulu Natal Law Society 2020 2 SA 325 (CC)

In re BOE Trust Ltd 2013 3 SA 236 (SCA)

Jaga v Dönges; Bhana v Dönges 1950 4 SA 653 (A)

KPMG Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd 2009 4 SA 399 (SCA)

Katz v Katz 2004 4 All SA 545 (C)

Letsekga v The Master 1995 4 SA 731 (W)

MacDonald v The Master 2002 5 SA 64 (N)

Mansingh v General Council of the Bar 2014 2 SA 26 (CC)

Marshall v Baker 2020 3 SA 463 (WCC)

Minister of Education v Syfrets Trust Ltd 2006 4 SA 205 (C)

Moosa v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services 2018 5 SA 13 (CC)

Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 4 SA 593 (SCA)

Opperman v Opperman 2016 ZAFSHC 26 (3 March 2016)

Osman v Nana 2019 ZAGPJHC 161 (3 May 2019)

Raubenheimer v Raubenheimer 2012 5 SA 290 (SCA)

Robertson v Robertson's Executors 1914 AD 503

Road Traffic Management Corporation v Waymark (Pty) Ltd 2019 5 SA 29 (CC)

Standard Bank Investment Corporation Ltd v Competition Commission; Liberty Life Association of Africa Ltd v Competition Commission 2000 2 SA 797 (SCA)

Schnetler v Die Meester 1999 4 SA 1250 (C)

Smith v Parsons 2010 4 All SA 74 (SCA)

Standard General Ins v Commissioner for Customs and Excise 2005 2 SA 166 (SCA)

Swart v Cape Fabrix (Pty) Ltd 1979 1 SA 195 (A)

Taylor v Taylor 2012 3 SA 219 (ECP)

Telkom SA Soc Ltd v CSARS 2020 4 SA 480 (SCA)

Tregea v Godart 1939 AD 16

Van der Merwe v Master of the High Court 2011 1 All SA 298 (SCA)

Van Wetten v Bosch 2004 1 SA 348 (SCA)

Veldman v Director of Public Prosecutions, WLD 2007 3 SA 210 (CC)

Westerhuis v Westerhuis 2018 ZAWCHC 84 (27 June 2018)

Young v The Master of the High Court, Durban 2015 ZAKZDHC 65 (28 August 2015)


Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Wills Act 7 of 1953



How to Cite

Moosa, F. (2021). Interpretation of Wills - Does Endumeni Case Apply? . Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal, 24, 1–30.