INLSA
The Rajbansis
The battle between Amichand Rajbansi’s children and wife over the administration of his multimillion-rand estate is far from over, but his wife won the first round yesterday when the Durban High Court allowed her to remain the sole executor of the estate.
According to the ruling by Judge Nompumelelo Radebe, Shameen Thakur-Rajbansi would administer the estate, but had to inform his daughters, Vimshana and Vimtha, if there were interim payments or distribution of assets to be made.
She also ordered that Thakur-Rajbansi must inform her stepdaughters of any documents to be lodged and litigation to be instituted or defended in respect of the estate.
Rajbansi, leader of the Minority Front, died after an illness in December last year. Soon after, a dispute arose over who would control his estate – valued at about R60 million – after it emerged that Rajbansi had written at least four wills, all of which differ markedly.
All the wills, except the last one, dated July 2010, named attorney Himal Tugh and Thakur-Rajbansi as joint executors. However, Rajbansi does not name an executor in the last will.
The first will, dated August 2000, allocated all his property and effects to the A Rajbansi Family Trust. The second, dated May 2003, distributed his assets among his wife and children, but left considerably more to Thakur-Rajbansi than any other relative. In a third will, written in January 2010, his five children, from his first marriage to Ashadevi Rajbansi, were left a larger share of his estate, including four petrol stations which were to be given to son Vimal and daughters Vimshana, Vimlekha and Vimtha. The fourth daughter, Vimlesh, would inherit land at the Chatsglen railway station, which would be developed by Shell.
However, six months later, Rajbansi made a fourth handwritten will, in which his children’s share of the estate was reduced and the garages left to the trust.
The Master of the High Court accepted the fourth document as being Rajbansi’s last will and testament and his widow was named the sole executor.
Aggrieved, Vimtha and Vimshana brought an urgent application yesterday, asking that Thakur-Rajbansi be removed as the executor.
Vimtha said that Thakur-Rajbansi was an inappropriate executor as she doubted the fourth will’s authenticity.
The daughters’ advocate, P Wallis, argued that Thakur-Rajbansi was recorded by an attorney saying that she believed the fourth will was not valid.
“The question to be asked is: how she can have that opinion and then comply with the terms of the will?”
Wallis said the daughters believed that the third and fourth wills should be read together and, given Thakur-Rajbansi’s reservations, Tugh should be made executor.
He said if no interim relief was granted, the estate’s assets would be unprotected.
Thakur-Rajbansi’s advocate, G Harrison, argued that his attorney had not had adequate time to prepare for yesterday’s application.
“The applicants indicated in a letter from their attorney as early as March 20 that they wanted to bring this application.
“But they waited until April 4 to lodge papers and gave us less than 24 hours’ notice.”
Harrison added it was a “bizarre notion” that the two wills could be read together, saying: “The fourth will clearly states that it is the last will and testament.”
He offered that Thakur-Rajbansi would inform the daughters of any payments to be made from the estate.
“The only concern they have raised is the interim payments and distribution; therefore we can give an undertaking that they be informed of this.”
This undertaking was made an order of court, and the application to have Thakur-Rajbansi removed as executor was adjourned indefinitely.
