Hofer and Others v Kevitt NO and Others (122/96) [1997] ZASCA 79; 1998 (1) SA 382 (SCA); [1997] 4 All SA 620 (A); (26 September 1997)

Hofer and Others v Kevitt NO and Others (122/96) [1997] ZASCA 79; 1998 (1) SA 382 (SCA); [1997] 4 All SA 620 (A); (26 September 1997)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amendments to the Charles Dickson Trust deed were valid. The trustees acted within their powers in consenting to the amendments, and there was no legal basis to conclude that their discretion was fettered or that they failed to consider the interests of potential beneficiaries. The majority judgment in Crookes v Watson remains binding, confirming that a trust inter vivos is a contract for the benefit of a third party and may be varied unless the beneficiaries have accepted the benefits. The Court found no evidence of unscrupulous conduct or undue influence by the donor in procuring Eleanora's consent to the amendments. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1997] ZASCA 79
Parties
Appellant: Hofer and Others; Respondent: Kevitt NO and Others
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 1997
Case Number
122/96
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
A P van Coller, Van Heerden, F H Grosskopf, Howie, Olivier
Legal Topics
Trust Amendment, Beneficiary Rights, Undue Influence, Contract for Benefit of Third Party
Civil Procedure Family and Children Trust Amendment Beneficiary Rights Undue Influence Contract for Benefit of Third Party

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

Hofer and Others

Appellant

Kevitt NO and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amendments to the Charles Dickson Trust deed were valid and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the trustees acted in accordance with their fiduciary duties when consenting to the amendments.
  3. 3 Whether the second and third amendments should be set aside on the grounds of undue influence.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the amendments to the Charles Dickson Trust deed were valid. The trustees acted within their powers in consenting to the amendments, and there was no legal basis to conclude that their discretion was fettered or that they failed to consider the interests of potential beneficiaries. The majority judgment in Crookes v Watson remains binding, confirming that a trust inter vivos is a contract for the benefit of a third party and may be varied unless the beneficiaries have accepted the benefits. The Court found no evidence of unscrupulous conduct or undue influence by the donor in procuring Eleanora's consent to the amendments. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.