Jooste NO and Another v Pretorius and Others (695/2023) [2024] ZASCA 130; [2024] 4 All SA 659 (SCA); 2025 (3) SA 95 (SCA) (1 October 2024)

Jooste NO and Another v Pretorius and Others (695/2023) [2024] ZASCA 130; [2024] 4 All SA 659 (SCA); 2025 (3) SA 95 (SCA) (1 October 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trustees validly exercised the power under clause 11.1.5 of the trust deed to require the respondent to resign, as the decision was taken unanimously, for compelling reasons, and in the interests of the Trust and its beneficiaries. The respondent's conduct, including exclusion of other trustees, false statements to the court, and jeopardising donor support, justified her removal. The court found that procedural fairness was afforded, the decision was not arbitrary, and the respondent's constitutional rights were not infringed. The High Court erred in finding disputes of fact requiring oral evidence and in granting the interim interdict. The appeal...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 130
Parties
Appellant: Tersia Jooste NO; Appellant: Jens Lievens NO; Respondent: Jana Annelise Pretorius; Respondent: Jana Annelise Pretorius NO; Respondent: Rhino Pride Foundation; Respondent: Master of the High Court
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2024
Case Number
695/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; trustees' resolution requiring respondent's resignation enforced.
Judges
Schippers, Nicholls, Mothle, Unterhalter, Baartman
Legal Topics
Trustee Removal, Trust Property Control Act, Interpretation of Trust Deed, Fiduciary Duties, Interim Interdict, Costs De Bonis Propriis
Land and Property Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Trustee Removal Trust Property Control Act Interpretation of Trust Deed Fiduciary Duties Interim Interdict +1 more

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tersia Jooste NO

Appellant

Jens Lievens NO

Appellant

Jana Annelise Pretorius

Respondent

Jana Annelise Pretorius NO

Respondent

Rhino Pride Foundation

Respondent

Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees validly exercised the power under clause 11.1.5 of the trust deed to require the respondent to resign as trustee.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the respondent as trustee was in the interests of the trust and its beneficiaries under section 20(1) of the Trust Property Control Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was afforded procedural fairness and whether her constitutional rights under section 34 were infringed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trustees validly exercised the power under clause 11.1.5 of the trust deed to require the respondent to resign, as the decision was taken unanimously, for compelling reasons, and in the interests of the Trust and its beneficiaries. The respondent's conduct, including exclusion of other trustees, false statements to the court, and jeopardising donor support, justified her removal. The court found that procedural fairness was afforded, the decision was not arbitrary, and the respondent's constitutional rights were not infringed. The High Court erred in finding disputes of fact requiring oral evidence and in granting the interim interdict. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; trustees' resolution requiring respondent's resignation enforced.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, payable by the first respondent in her personal capacity.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced with dismissal of the main application and enforcement of the counter-application.