Pretoria - Joost van der Westhuizen’s widow Amor Vittone wants more than just the TV set left for her by the late former Springbok rugby captain.
The Afrikaans singer has filed papers with the Supreme Court of Appeal challenging last year’s order by Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, Judge Hans Fabricius, which endorsed Van der Westhuizen’s 2015 will.
In terms of this will, Vittone inherits only the TV, while his belongings were bequeathed to his two teenage children Jordan and Kylie.
Half of his interest of the Dainfern home in which Vittone and the children lived, will go into trust with the J9 Foundation. The children are the sole beneficiaries of the trust.
Judge Fabricius at the time found that Vittone did not motivate why she disputed her husband’s physical condition when he signed the 2015 will, said to be his last before he died in February 2017 at the age of 45.
The judge said it was clear that Van der Westhuizen wanted his last will to be accepted.
But Vittone disputed the will on numerous grounds, the main of which was that Van der Westhuizen did not sign it himself. Instead his attorney, Ferdinand Hartzenberg, signed it on his behalf because he was so ill with motor neuron disease that he could not use his hands to grip a pen.
This caused a legal problem for the Master of the High Court, as Hartzenberg also acted as the commissioner of oaths at the time. The Master rejected this will, which meant that an earlier version in terms of which Vittone inherited her estranged husband’s assets would have been accepted.
But Hartzenberg and Van der Westhuizen’s brother Pieter, who had been named executors, turned to court to accept the 2015 will under the circumstances of Van der Westhuizen’s illness.
Vittone vigorously opposed this and denied that Van der Westhuizen was unable to sign the will, or at least make a mark on it.
She said he had often been to dinner at her home before his death and was able to hold a fork. However, she disputed his mental capacity in 2015 when he made the last will, in which he made it clear that she would only inherit the TV “in the upstairs bedroom” of his Dainfern home.
After last year’s court defeat, her lawyer Sean Hefferman said she had “no idea which TV they were talking about. She has her own television”, he said.
Vittone approached the court in April to ask for leave to appeal the judgment. Judge Fabricius refused this and said the will was clearly Van der Westhuizen’s last wishes.
He concluded that no other court would come to a different finding.
But Vittone has now petitioned the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. She said in papers filed at that court that Judge Fabricius had erred in his findings.
She said the Wills Act was clear that the commissioner of oaths could not both sign in this capacity and on behalf of the person whose will he was drafting. She argued that one person simply could not sign in dual capacities.
Her lawyer last year, after Judge Fabricius’s judgment, said she was very upset when she heard the news that Van der Westhuizen’s 2015 will had been accepted by the court. He said she gave instructions to appeal the matter.
But Pieter Van der Westhuizen said it was the former Springbok captain’s wishes. Judge Fabricius agreed with this and said in his judgment he had no doubt that the will was valid and Van der Westhuizen’s last wish.
He rejected Vittone’s blanket denials that Van der Westhuizen was mentally unable to give instructions for the latest will. He said her defence - simply denying that he was up to giving instructions - was “scandalous”.
The judge said given the background leading to Van der Westhuizen having this last will drawn up, it was clear it was his instructions and wishes. He said Vittone knew that his illness had worsened and the effect it had on him. He said it was thus strange that she was so involved in his life, yet she could not motivate to the court why she thought he was not up to having this will drawn up. He said it was “a strange way to treat someone you once loved and had children with”.
Hartzenberg and Van der Westhuizen’s brother must still file their answers to the application, which they are expected to do soon.
Two judges will then decide whether to grant leave to appeal - the first hurdle Vittone has to overcome before the matter is heard.