Page:Gory v Kolver (HC).djvu/16

Rh with the costs of this application. As far as the first respondent is concerned he ought not to be remunerated for his services with the administration of the estate or reimbursed for expenses. It is my view that his conduct led to the application in the present form. His stance not to admit that the applicant and the deceased had a same-sex life partnership just as the second- and third respondents' denial of such a partnership, after the application was served, cannot be justified. If the first respondent had done the proper thing namely to enquire why the applicant claims that there was a same-sex life partnership, and after having been given all the relevant facts he could have suspended his activities and could have put the applicant on terms to bring an application for an unopposed declaratory order. He should have informed the second- and third respondents that there is a probability that the section be declared unconstitutional. In my view he must be held responsible for a portion of the costs in this matter de bonis propriis. The second- and third respondents must also pay a portion of the costs.

The following order is made: 1. It is declared that the omission in section 1 (1) of the Intestate Succession Act, 81 of 1987 after the word "spouse", wherever it appears in the section, of the words "or partner in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support" is inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa.

2. It is declared that section 1 (1) of the Intestate Succession Act is to be read as though the following words appear therein, after the word "spouse", wherever it appears in the section — "or partner in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which the partners have undertaken reciprocal duties of support".

3.The orders in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall have no effect on the validity of any acts performed in respect of the administration of an intestate estate that has been finally wound up by date of this order.

4. It is declared that the applicant and the late Henry Harrison Brooks were, at the time of the death of the deceased, partners in a permanent same-sex life partnership in which they had undertaken reciprocal duties of support.

5. It is declared that the applicant is the sole heir of the late Henry Harrison Brooks.

6. The agreement, dated 9 September 2005 in which the property situated at