7 Sept 2022
Because no personal representative of the deceased trustee could be identified and the applicant established his beneficial entitlement and identity with supporting documentary evidence, the court had jurisdiction under section 45(e) to vest the legal estate in the applicant and therefore granted the vesting order.
6 Jun 2018
The court granted the vesting order because the applicant established he was the beneficial owner entitled to the property and there was no opposition; accordingly a vesting order was made under s45 Trustee Ordinance and no orders were made against the defendant.
12 Sept 2013
Because there was no personal representative of the deceased trustee, the trusteeship had served its purpose, and the applicant had produced necessary authorisations, the court was entitled under section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance to make a vesting order in terms of the originating summons and to hear the application ex parte.
17 Jan 2007
The court granted the vesting order because the applicant, as administratrix with Letters of Administration, was authorized to administer her late husband's beneficial interest in the Lots, the trustee was deceased and no personal representative of the deceased trustee could be identified, and the court was satisfied on the evidence that vesting the estates and interests in the applicant was appropriate.