The Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) has struck down a series of wills and a codicil signed by a wealthy 94‑year‑old businessman, ruling that he lacked testamentary capacity from mid‑2014 due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. 

IoL reports that Judge Norman Manoim’s judgment marks a decisive turn in a protracted inheritance battle between the deceased’s first and second families.

The court held that all documents signed from July 2014 onwards were invalid, ordering that his April 2012 will and codicil must govern the winding‑up of his SA estate.

The businessman, identified only as BK, was born in Minsk in 1923 and emigrated to SA in the 1930s. After studying mechanical engineering at Wits, he built a successful career in manufacturing and later invested in a business, which became a listed company.

He retired in 1983, thereafter managing his wealth through investments. His estate was divided into three categories: SA assets, a Family Trust, and an estate in Israel.

The latter two remain subject to separate litigation.

The dispute was initiated by members of BK’s first family, who argued that successive changes to his wills diminished their inheritance in favour of his second wife and daughter.

While the first family was not entirely disinherited, their share was progressively reduced between 2012 and 2016.

The central issue was whether BK understood the nature and consequences of his decisions when signing the disputed documents. 

Medical evidence proved decisive, notes IoL. Geriatrician Dr Brent Tipping, who treated BK from 2011, testified to his cognitive decline. Tipping described his dementia as moderate.

Other experts confirmed the deterioration, though they differed on the precise timeline. The court scrutinised wills signed in July and August 2014, which reorganised BK’s estate and created a testamentary trust favouring his second wife.

Evidence showed BK asked his wife on the day of signing, 'what am I signing today,' raising doubts about his awareness.

Investment adviser Daniel Roy later recorded a 2016 conversation in which BK struggled to follow basic discussions, further illustrating his decline.

Manoim was critical of testimony from financial adviser David Nathan, who insisted BK understood the documents.

The court found his evidence vague and outweighed by medical records and corroborating accounts. A 2015 letter from BK’s second wife to Tipping described 'huge deterioration' in his memory, reinforcing the diagnosis. 

The judgment emphasised that social interactions can mask cognitive impairment, noting BK appeared sociable and polite despite significant decline. 

The court concluded that by mid‑2014 BK lacked the capacity to appreciate the consequences of his estate planning.

The ruling reinstates the 2012 will and codicil as the operative instruments for BK’s SA estate. It also sets a precedent for how courts weigh retrospective medical evidence and family testimony in disputes over testamentary capacity.

Full IoL report