A Deathbed Gift and a Written Will: Dividing 600,000 EGP
An Egyptian family asks a sharia committee to divide an estate. The father died after three months of an illness that confined him to bed. After funeral costs and debts are paid, the estate consists of 510,000 EGP in cash plus a workshop valued at 90,000 EGP. Eight weeks before his death, while bedridden, he transferred the workshop to his elder son by registered deed, receiving nothing, and the deed describes the transfer as 'a gift in appreciation'. His written will, dated two years earlier, leaves 72,000 EGP to a mosque. The heirs are the widow, the deceased's mother, two sons and one daughter. The widow and the grandmother say the workshop transfer 'is fine'; the second son and the daughter refuse to consent. The elder son has already spent 20,000 EGP of his own money renovating the workshop. The committee must issue shares in figures with written reasoning.
1. Produce the division in figures, showing the order of operations and the base of the problem.
Read the worked answer
Order of operations matters more than the arithmetic.
Step 1 - the charitable will. Total estate = 510,000 + 90,000 = 600,000. One third = 200,000; the will of 72,000 is within it, so it is executed from the top without anyone's consent. Distributable estate = 600,000 − 72,000 = 528,000.
Step 2 - the workshop. A gift made in death-illness counts as a bequest. It is a bequest to an heir, and the two heirs whose shares it reduces refuse consent; the consent of the widow and grandmother does not cure it. The transfer therefore fails and the workshop returns to the estate, which is why the 90,000 is inside the 600,000 above.
Step 3 - the shares of 528,000:
| Heir | Basis | Amount (EGP) |
|---|---|---|
| Widow | 1/8 | 66,000 |
| Mother | 1/6 | 88,000 |
| Residue: 528,000 − 154,000 = 374,000, over 5 shares | ||
| Each son | 2 shares | 149,600 |
| Daughter | 1 share | 74,800 |
Check: 66,000 + 88,000 + 149,600 + 149,600 + 74,800 = 528,000. The elder son receives 149,600 as an heir like his brother, and no more.
The 20,000 renovation is a separate claim: he is either compensated for a lawful improvement or liable for damage, and that is decided before the final distribution, not folded into his share.
2. Set out the legal reasoning behind the workshop ruling: why does a registered deed not settle the matter, and what facts must the committee establish?
Read the worked answer
The deed records a transfer; the law asks when and in what state of health.
Marad al-mawt. A gift made during an illness in which death is expected and which confines the giver is treated as a bequest (wasiyya) in effect: it takes effect only after death and only within one third. The deed does not change this; the committee must verify the date of the deed against the date he became bedbound, and hear the witnesses.- Bequest to an heir. On the strength of the report 'no bequest to an heir', the schools require the consent of the other heirs for a bequest to an heir. Consent must come from those whose shares are reduced - here the second son and the daughter. Their refusal is decisive; the widow's and grandmother's agreement is irrelevant to it.
- Consent is revocable before distribution in most schools, so the committee should record the refusal in writing.
- Facts to establish: the onset date of the illness, whether he was mentally competent, whether any payment or counter-value existed, whether the workshop was his sole property, and whether the two refusing heirs might later consent.
Had the transfer been made in health, with delivery of the deed, it would stand and no heir could object.
3. A committee member argues: 'The 72,000 will is also a bequest, and the third is already used, so the mosque should be reduced.' Assess this reasoning.
Read the worked answer
It confuses the order of the two bequests with their validity.
The one-third is measured against the estate at death, 600,000, giving 200,000. The charitable will of 72,000 consumes part of that third and is valid, because it is not in favour of an heir and is within the limit. The workshop, valued at 90,000, is a second bequest, and the remaining third after the mosque is 200,000 − 72,000 = 128,000. So the workshop would fit inside the third numerically - but numbers are not the obstacle here. The obstacle is that its beneficiary is an heir and the other heirs refuse.
That distinction matters practically. If the second son and daughter consented, the workshop gift would pass (90,000 being below the 128,000 remaining) and the shares above would be recomputed on 510,000 minus 72,000 only. If the gift had exceeded the third, the excess would fall back into the estate regardless of consent. The committee member's conclusion happens to leave the mosque's 72,000 untouched, but his route to it is wrong and would mislead the family in a written decision.