C.J.R v H.W.R and Others (8327/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 134 (7 July 2025)

C.J.R v H.W.R and Others (8327/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 134 (7 July 2025)

The court found that the applicant, as founder and donor of the trust, has locus standi to seek amendment of the trust deed under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act. The appointment of the first respondent as beneficiary constituted a donation, evidenced by the trust deed's provisions and the intention to enrich the beneficiary. The first respondent's repeated assaults and criminal behaviour after being appointed as beneficiary amounted to gross ingratitude, justifying revocation of the donation. The court held that section 13 empowers it to vary trust provisions where the founder's objectives are hampered or public interest is prejudiced, regardless of clause 20's requirement...

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 134
Parties
Applicant: C[...] J[...] R[...]; Respondent: H[...] W[...] R[...]; Respondent: C[...] J[...] R[...] N.O; Respondent: Gideon Venter N.O; Respondent: Philippus Coetzer N.O; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Polokwane
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 July 2025
Case Number
8327/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Application for Amendment of Trust Deed
Outcome
Application granted. Clause 1.5.2 of the trust deed is deleted and substituted; the first respondent is removed as beneficiary and replaced by his children; the fifth respondent is directed to amend its records accordingly; costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
S Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Trust Property Control Act, Removal of Beneficiary, Gross Ingratitude, Donation Revocation, Amendment of Trust Deed
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trust Property Control Act Removal of Beneficiary Gross Ingratitude Donation Revocation Amendment of Trust Deed

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

C[...] J[...] R[...]

Applicant

H[...] W[...] R[...]

Respondent

C[...] J[...] R[...] N.O

Respondent

Gideon Venter N.O

Respondent

Philippus Coetzer N.O

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Polokwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Application for Amendment of Trust Deed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has locus standi to seek amendment of the trust deed.
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of the first respondent as beneficiary constitutes a donation subject to revocation for gross ingratitude.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the first respondent amounts to gross ingratitude justifying removal as beneficiary.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, as founder and donor of the trust, has locus standi to seek amendment of the trust deed under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act. The appointment of the first respondent as beneficiary constituted a donation, evidenced by the trust deed's provisions and the intention to enrich the beneficiary. The first respondent's repeated assaults and criminal behaviour after being appointed as beneficiary amounted to gross ingratitude, justifying revocation of the donation. The court held that section 13 empowers it to vary trust provisions where the founder's objectives are hampered or public interest is prejudiced, regardless of clause 20's requirement...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Clause 1.5.2 of the trust deed is deleted and substituted; the first respondent is removed as beneficiary and replaced by his children; the fifth respondent is directed to amend its records accordingly; costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • Clause 1.5.2 of the Trust Deed dated 27 June 2016, Masters Ref No. IT163/2016(L), is deleted and substituted as set out in the judgment.
  • The Fifth Respondent is directed to amend or rectify its records in accordance with the amendment.