School of Law School of Law
Edinburgh Legal History Blog    
 Search ELHblog

Authors: John Cairns and Paul du Plessis
latest posts by Paul du Plessis in this blog:





The trouble with funeral expenses
02 September 2009 09:29
In a 2002 case recently reported, NODADA FUNERAL SERVICES CC v THE MASTER AND OTHERS 2003 (4) SA 422 (TkH), the High Court of Transkei had to decide whether the actio funeraria still applied in South African law. The facts of the case are the following. The deceased's sister instructed Nodala Funeral Services to oversee the funeral, the cost of which would be recovered from a life insurance policy. After this had been done and the bill had been presented, it transpired that the deceased had nominated her daughter, a minor, as the beneficiary of the policy and that the funds were being held in trust by the Guardian's Fund. Nodala brought an action based on the actio funeraria against the minor. The court also investigated whether the instruction to Nodala amounted either to a mandate or negotiorum gestio.
roman law
Comments:
Please note, you must be logged in with your EASE account to post comments. Click here to login
Please also note that you can change your nickname at any time, but only once every six months.
If you don't have an EASE account, you can click here to register as an EASE friend
Hector
02/09/2009 09:53:52
Result?
PdP
02/09/2009 10:08:13
If the action still exists (the court had reservations), cannot be brought against heirs. The court was not convinced that it was negotiorum gestio either.
Hector
02/09/2009 16:36:37
I have a feeling there are some old Scottish cases of this kind where the actio de in rem verso was also used.
PdP
03/09/2009 08:37:14
I have a copy of the judgement if anyone's interested.
Hector
03/09/2009 10:01:29
the Scottish case I am thinking of is Johnston of Westerhall v Marquis of Annandale (1726) Mor 8486, 9281, 13412. J paid for the funeral of the deceased marquis at his widow's order and claimed against the heir on the basis of the actio negotiorum gestio or the actio de in rem verso. J sought to rebut an argument that the service was intended to benefit the widow only by claiming that both actiones arose from the fact of applying money for another's behoof, whether or not there was an intention to serve that other. This was rejected by the Court of Session, which held that J could be in no better position than the widow.
Accessibility menu