17/09/2025
Good Morning
Herewith interesting article in respect of a deceased estate:
Jacobs and Another v Adams and Another (2024–127653) [2025] ZAGPJHC 860 (24 August 2025)
FACTS
The deceased, aged 29, died intestate in July 2021 with no spouse, children, siblings, or dependants. His net estate was valued at R716,070.24. His surviving parents were Jacobs (mother and executrix of the estate) and Adams (biological father).
Ordinarily, in terms of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987, Jacobs and Adams would each inherit half of the estate. Jacobs applied to exclude Adams from inheriting on the grounds that he had abandoned his parental role and was indignus (unworthy to inherit).
Evidence showed Adams had minimal involvement in the deceased’s life, paid sporadic maintenance only during the first year, and had been absent for nearly three decades. The deceased was raised solely by Jacobs (mother) and her extended family, with another man (McCarthy) becoming a de facto father figure.
ISSUE
Whether Adams, despite being a biological parent under the Intestate Succession Act, should be declared indignus and excluded from inheriting due to his prolonged absence and failure to fulfil parental responsibilities.
RULE
1. Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 – determines inheritance in cases where there is no will.
2. Common law principle of indignus – a person may be excluded from inheriting if their conduct renders them unworthy (e.g., failing in legal or moral duties towards the deceased).
3. Case authority – Wilsnach NO v TM and Others [2020] ZAGPPHC 756: recognised the exclusion of a parent from inheritance for failure to fulfil parental responsibilities.
APPLICATION
The court rejected the argument to interpret the statutory term “parent” in a rights-based, constitutional sense, as the Act does not allow such a reading.
However, the principle of indignus provided a basis for exclusion. Adams’s conduct was scrutinised. He severed ties with the deceased early in life. Maintenance was sporadic and stopped after the first year. He had no meaningful involvement for nearly 30 years.
Such prolonged absence and abdication of parental responsibility constituted sufficient grounds to declare him unworthy to inherit. The court held that while Adams remained a biological parent under the Act, his neglect and abandonment justified exclusion under common law.
JUDGMENT
Adams declared indignus and excluded from inheriting. Jacobs was declared the sole. intestate heir.
This case is an important legal precedent for the Law of Succession module. This case confirms that biological parenthood alone is not enough to guarantee inheritance under intestate succession. The case reinforces the application of the indignus principle to exclude parents who fail in their legal and moral duties. In short, deadbeat fathers may not inherit
Have a lovely day ahead
Kind Regards,
NR Goge
Para-Legal Practioner
KZN Consultants
[email protected]
www.kznconsultants.co.za
