Du Preez v Du Preez NO and Others (10832/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 112 (21 August 2020)

Du Preez v Du Preez NO and Others (10832/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 112 (21 August 2020)

The court held that the applicant, as a first trustee, does not fall within the protected category of trustees under clause 5.3 of the trust deed. The trust deed distinguishes between first trustees, additional trustees nominated by the founder during his lifetime, and succeeding trustees nominated by the founder in his will. The applicant was not nominated as an additional or succeeding trustee but was a first trustee. The language and scheme of the trust deed make it clear that only the founder and trustees nominated by him after execution of the trust deed are protected from removal by majority vote. The court found no basis to override the founder's intention or the plain language of...

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 112
Parties
Applicant: Charles Gordon Du Preez; Respondent: Annette Du Preez N.O.; Respondent: Charles Gordon Du Preez N.O.; Respondent: Jean Pierre Du Preez N.O.
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Case Number
10832/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Before the High Court
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; the applicant is not entitled to interdictory relief preventing his removal as trustee.
Judges
Norton
Legal Topics
Trust Deed Interpretation, Removal of Trustee, Interdictory Relief
Civil Procedure Land and Property Trust Deed Interpretation Removal of Trustee Interdictory Relief

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles Gordon Du Preez

Applicant

Annette Du Preez N.O.

Respondent

Charles Gordon Du Preez N.O.

Respondent

Jean Pierre Du Preez N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as a trustee, is protected from removal by majority vote under clause 5.5.5 of the trust deed.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interdictory relief preventing the trustees' meeting and his removal.
  3. 3 How the relevant clauses of the trust deed should be interpreted regarding the removal of trustees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant, as a first trustee, does not fall within the protected category of trustees under clause 5.3 of the trust deed. The trust deed distinguishes between first trustees, additional trustees nominated by the founder during his lifetime, and succeeding trustees nominated by the founder in his will. The applicant was not nominated as an additional or succeeding trustee but was a first trustee. The language and scheme of the trust deed make it clear that only the founder and trustees nominated by him after execution of the trust deed are protected from removal by majority vote. The court found no basis to override the founder's intention or the plain language of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; the applicant is not entitled to interdictory relief preventing his removal as trustee.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.