On 30 June 2026, the High Court of South Africa, KwaZulu-Natal Local Division, Durban, handed down judgment in Animal Anti-Cruelty League and Others v Moodley and Others, declaring a disputed will null and void on the grounds of fraud and undue influence. The Court reinstated the deceased's earlier will as his last valid will and testament. Our clients, five charitable institutions, are named as equal heirs to the estate under that will.
Background facts
The deceased and his late wife had, over the course of a long marriage, consistently intended that their estate benefit the five plaintiff charities. This intention was recorded in a joint will, executed in 2008 and reaffirmed in a will executed in September 2020, following his wife's death. Neither of those wills was ever placed in dispute.
The matter arose after a second will surfaced, purportedly signed a week before the deceased passed away at the age of 90. That will revoked all earlier testamentary dispositions and left the deceased's entire estate to Mr Moodley, a Woolworths manager that the deceased had allegedly met after Mr Moodley intervened during an attempted robbery on the M13 freeway in 2017.
Mr Moodley claimed a close, family-like bond developed from that point, particularly after the deceased's wife died in 2020, to the extent that the deceased regarded him as a son and asked to be addressed as "Abba". None of this was corroborated by any independent witness. Nursing staff testified that the "son" designation was added to the deceased's care records at Mr Moodley's own request, and neither the deceased's financial adviser of thirty years nor his long-standing neighbour had ever heard of the robbery or the relationship he described. The Court found this account improbable.
The charities were cut out entirely. The will itself was drafted by a lay person with no legal training, using an online precedent, and was signed during a lunch break in circumstances where the deceased was, on the evidence of independent nursing staff, unable to feed himself, unable to sit upright without support and largely unable to communicate beyond single words.
The basis for the Court's decision
The Court applied the established principle that a will may be set aside where the signature attributed to the testator is shown to be a forgery, or where the will, even if signed by the testator, does not reflect his genuine and voluntary intention because that intention was displaced through coercion or fraud. Competing forensic evidence was led on the authenticity of the signatures, and the two experts, applying the same recognised methodology, reached differing conclusions. The Court declined to resolve the dispute on the expert evidence alone and instead weighed it against the whole of the evidence, consistent with the approach endorsed by our courts in these matters.
On that broader assessment, the Court found the version advanced on behalf of our clients to be the more probable one. The deceased's documented and consistent wishes, corroborated by independent witnesses with no interest in the outcome, including his financial adviser and a neighbour of many years, weighed heavily against a late and materially unexplained change of heart in favour of a recent acquaintance. Costs were awarded against the first defendant, including counsel's fees and the fees of the plaintiffs' forensic document expert.
Practical implications
This judgment is a welcome affirmation that our courts will not hesitate to intervene where a testator's long-standing and clearly documented intentions are displaced, late in life and in circumstances of physical vulnerability, by a will that serves the interests of one individual at the expense of everyone else. It is a particularly meaningful outcome for our clients, who had no prior relationship with the deceased and no reason to expect the benefit conferred on them, other than the deceased's own settled wish to honour his late wife's memory.
A note on the firm’s involvement
This matter commenced whilst our professionals practised under the name and style of Eversheds Sutherland (KZN) Inc. and was carried over to Thomson Wilks following a merger of the offices on 01 January 2026. As a result, the judgment reflects Eversheds Sutherland (KZN) Inc. as the instructing attorneys of record.
A copy of the judgment can be found here:
