Page:Gory v Kolver (CC).djvu/2

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Van Heerden AJ

[1] This case concerns the constitutional validity of section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 (the Act) to the extent that it confers rights of intestate succession on heterosexual spouses but not on permanent same-sex life partners, as well as the appropriate remedy should this Court confirm the order of constitutional invalidity made by the Pretoria High Court.


Background


[2] The applicant, Mr Mark Gory, and the late Henry Harrison Brooks (the deceased) were, at the time of the latter’s death, partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which they had undertaken reciprocal duties of support. The factual background of the relationship between Mr Gory and Mr Brooks is set out fully in the reported judgment of the High Court.[1] As the factual findings of the High Court in this regard have not been challenged, it is not necessary to repeat the facts in any detail.

[3] When Mr Brooks died intestate on 30 April 2005, his parents, who were the second and third respondents in the court below, nominated the first respondent, Mr Daniel Gerhardus Kolver, to be appointed by the Master of the High Court, Pretoria (the sixth respondent in the court below), as the executor of their son’s estate. They claimed to be the deceased’s intestate heirs[2] and entitled to his estate. The resulting


  1. Gory v Kolver NO and Others 2006 (7) BCLR 775 (T).
  2. In terms of section 1(1)(d)(i) of the Act, which provides that –

2