The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has declared a father unworthy to inherit from his late son’s estate, valued at more than R716,000, after finding that he had been virtually absent from the young man’s life for 29 years.
The ruling was delivered by Acting Judge Frank Snyckers in a case brought by the deceased’s mother, who was also the executrix of his estate.
The son died in July 2021 at the age of 29 after contracting COVID-19. He had not left a will, and his estate was valued at R716,070.24.
Under South Africa’s intestate succession laws, the deceased’s surviving parents would ordinarily have been entitled to inherit the estate in equal shares, amounting to approximately R358,000 each.
However, the mother approached the court seeking to prevent the father from benefiting, arguing that he had played virtually no role in raising or supporting their son.
Father allegedly absent from son’s life
According to the judgment, the parents had a brief relationship that resulted in the pregnancy. The father reportedly showed little interest during the pregnancy and was not present when the child was born.
The court heard that the father provided some nappies during the first month after the birth and later visited the child in hospital when he was about a year old.
That visit was described as effectively his last meaningful involvement in his son’s life.
The mother initially pursued maintenance payments, but these were reportedly sporadic. She subsequently raised the child herself with assistance from her family.
The court heard that the deceased had no meaningful relationship with his biological father as he grew up. Apart from a chance encounter at a function, there was no evidence of further contact between them.
The father also made no further contributions towards his son’s upkeep.
Court distinguishes parenthood from the right to inherit
The mother initially asked the court to declare that the father was not a parent for purposes of the Intestate Succession Act.
However, Judge Snyckers rejected that argument, finding that the legislation recognises biological parenthood when determining inheritance rights and does not allow a person’s status as a parent to be removed simply because they failed to fulfil parental responsibilities.
The judge explained that remaining a biological parent does not necessarily mean a person is entitled to inherit in every circumstance.
Instead, the court considered the common-law principle of unworthiness to inherit, which allows a person to be disqualified from benefiting from an estate in appropriate circumstances.
Father declared unworthy to inherit
Judge Snyckers found that the father’s complete and sustained abandonment of his son, from essentially infancy until his death, justified declaring him unworthy to inherit.
The judge cautioned that the decision should not be interpreted to mean that every absent parent automatically loses the right to inherit from a deceased child. Each case would have to be assessed according to its particular circumstances.
The court ultimately declared the father unworthy to inherit from his late son’s estate. The mother’s application was dismissed in all other respects, with the costs of the proceedings to be paid from the estate.
The judgment establishes a distinction between being recognised as a biological parent under inheritance law and being legally entitled to benefit from a deceased child’s estate.
Case Law: Jacobs NO and Another v Adams and Another [2025] ZAGPJHC 860.
