Jansen N.O. and Others v Adams (10870/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 159 (25 August 2022)

Jansen N.O. and Others v Adams (10870/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 159 (25 August 2022)

The court held that the defendant's averments regarding standing, including acting in the public interest under section 38(d) of the Constitution, are not manifestly incorrect or false for purposes of an exception. The trust is a charitable trust, and standing to seek removal of trustees is not limited to beneficiaries or trustees; it may extend to persons with a sufficiently direct interest, including those acting in the public interest. The exception cannot succeed unless the pleadings are bad in law on every reasonable interpretation, which is not the case here. The defendant's claim to standing is not so untenable as to warrant dismissal at this stage, and the matter should proceed to...

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 159
Parties
Plaintiff: Priscilla Jansen N.O.; Plaintiff: Janap Davids N.O.; Plaintiff: Thembisely Dyani N.O.; Plaintiff: Gregory Louw N.O.; Defendant: Hassan Adams
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2022
Case Number
10870/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Exception to Third Party Claim for Removal of Trustees
Outcome
Exception dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Hockey
Legal Topics
Trust Property Control Act, Legal Standing, Removal of Trustee, Public Interest Litigation
Civil Procedure Land and Property Trust Property Control Act Legal Standing Removal of Trustee Public Interest Litigation

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Priscilla Jansen N.O.

Plaintiff

Janap Davids N.O.

Plaintiff

Thembisely Dyani N.O.

Plaintiff

Gregory Louw N.O.

Plaintiff

Hassan Adams

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Exception to Third Party Claim for Removal of Trustees

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the defendant have legal standing to seek the removal of the third parties as trustees of the Hout Bay Development Trust under section 20(1) of the Trust Property Control Act?
  2. 2 Can a founder or donor of a charitable trust, who is not a beneficiary or trustee, be considered a person 'having an interest in the trust property' for purposes of standing?
  3. 3 Does section 38(d) of the Constitution confer standing on the defendant to act in the public interest regarding the removal of trustees?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendant's averments regarding standing, including acting in the public interest under section 38(d) of the Constitution, are not manifestly incorrect or false for purposes of an exception. The trust is a charitable trust, and standing to seek removal of trustees is not limited to beneficiaries or trustees; it may extend to persons with a sufficiently direct interest, including those acting in the public interest. The exception cannot succeed unless the pleadings are bad in law on every reasonable interpretation, which is not the case here. The defendant's claim to standing is not so untenable as to warrant dismissal at this stage, and the matter should proceed to...

Court Disposition

Exception dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The exception is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.