Enslin and Another v Enslin (1741/2012) [2015] ZANWHC 26 (2 July 2015)

Enslin and Another v Enslin (1741/2012) [2015] ZANWHC 26 (2 July 2015)

The court held that the First Applicant, having been sequestrated, ceased to be a beneficiary of the trust in terms of the disqualification clause (clause 20.2) of the Deed of Trust. There is no re-qualification clause, and none can be implied. The right to stipulate the formula for division of trust assets in a will (clause 22) does not confer locus standi to seek removal of a trustee, as it does not make the First Applicant a beneficiary or give him a direct interest in the trust property. The Second Applicant, although a trustee, failed to provide any factual basis for the removal of the Respondent and relied solely on the First Applicant's allegations, which were not based on personal...

Citation
[2015] ZANWHC 26
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Frederick Enslin; Applicant: Wynand Coenraad Jacobus Bezuidenthoud N.O; Respondent: Cornelia Jeanetta Enslin N.O
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 July 2015
Case Number
1741/2012
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
R D Hendricks
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Trustee Removal, Sequestration Effects, Trust Deed Interpretation
Civil Procedure Family and Children Locus Standi Trustee Removal Sequestration Effects Trust Deed Interpretation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Frederick Enslin

Applicant

Wynand Coenraad Jacobus Bezuidenthoud N.O

Applicant

Cornelia Jeanetta Enslin N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Main Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Applicant, having been sequestrated, retains locus standi to seek removal of the Respondent as trustee of the trust.
  2. 2 Whether clause 22 of the Deed of Trust confers a direct and substantial interest on the First Applicant sufficient to justify locus standi.
  3. 3 Whether the Second Applicant, as trustee, has provided sufficient factual grounds to support the removal of the Respondent as trustee.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the First Applicant, having been sequestrated, ceased to be a beneficiary of the trust in terms of the disqualification clause (clause 20.2) of the Deed of Trust. There is no re-qualification clause, and none can be implied. The right to stipulate the formula for division of trust assets in a will (clause 22) does not confer locus standi to seek removal of a trustee, as it does not make the First Applicant a beneficiary or give him a direct interest in the trust property. The Second Applicant, although a trustee, failed to provide any factual basis for the removal of the Respondent and relied solely on the First Applicant's allegations, which were not based on personal...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal to either the Full Bench of this division or the Supreme Court of Appeal is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal.