Griessel NO and Others v De Kock and Another (334/18) [2019] ZASCA 95; 2019 (5) SA 396 (SCA) (6 June 2019)

Griessel NO and Others v De Kock and Another (334/18) [2019] ZASCA 95; 2019 (5) SA 396 (SCA) (6 June 2019)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that even contingent beneficiaries in a discretionary trust are entitled to protection against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by trustees. The trustees' exclusion of the first respondent from access to the farm, while other potential beneficiaries continued to enjoy such access, constituted unfair discrimination without justification. The court confirmed that the trust, as sole shareholder of the company owning the farm, exercises control over access rights. The order of the court a quo reinstating the first respondent's rights as a beneficiary was upheld. However, the order directing the Master to appoint an additional trustee was set aside due to...

Citation
[2019] ZASCA 95
Parties
Applicant: Joan Cynthia Griessel NO; Applicant: Shirley Ann Van Wyk NO; Applicant: Caryn Schutz NO; Applicant: Joan Cynthia Griessel; Applicant: Shirley Ann Van Wyk; Applicant: De Vilebois Etienne De Kock; Applicant: Celeste Marie De Kock; Applicant: Manyeleti (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Harold Lee De Kock; Respondent: The Master of the High Court of South Africa Pretoria
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 June 2019
Case Number
334/18
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Merits
Outcome
Appeal granted in part; reinstatement of beneficiary rights confirmed; ancillary orders regarding additional trustee and punitive costs set aside.
Judges
Navsa, Leach, Majiedt, Molemela, Davis
Legal Topics
Trusts, Discretionary Trusts, Beneficiary Rights, Fiduciary Duties, Costs Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trusts Discretionary Trusts Beneficiary Rights Fiduciary Duties Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Cynthia Griessel NO

Applicant

Shirley Ann Van Wyk NO

Applicant

Caryn Schutz NO

Applicant

Joan Cynthia Griessel

Applicant

Shirley Ann Van Wyk

Applicant

De Vilebois Etienne De Kock

Applicant

Celeste Marie De Kock

Applicant

Manyeleti (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Harold Lee De Kock

Respondent

The Master of the High Court of South Africa Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Supreme Court of Appeal Judgment on Leave to Appeal and Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether a beneficiary of a discretionary trust acquires rights capable of protection.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo was correct in reinstating the first respondent's access to the farm.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that even contingent beneficiaries in a discretionary trust are entitled to protection against arbitrary and discriminatory treatment by trustees. The trustees' exclusion of the first respondent from access to the farm, while other potential beneficiaries continued to enjoy such access, constituted unfair discrimination without justification. The court confirmed that the trust, as sole shareholder of the company owning the farm, exercises control over access rights. The order of the court a quo reinstating the first respondent's rights as a beneficiary was upheld. However, the order directing the Master to appoint an additional trustee was set aside due to...

Court Disposition

Appeal granted in part; reinstatement of beneficiary rights confirmed; ancillary orders regarding additional trustee and punitive costs set aside.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal succeeds only to the limited extent reflected in paragraph 3.