Joubert and Others v Joubert and Others (9168/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 56; [2019] 3 All SA 551 (WCC); 2019 (6) SA 51 (WCC) (10 May 2019)

Joubert and Others v Joubert and Others (9168/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 56; [2019] 3 All SA 551 (WCC); 2019 (6) SA 51 (WCC) (10 May 2019)

The court found that, at the time the disputed resolution was passed, only two trustees—the testator and the first applicant—were properly authorised to act, as the corporate trustee (C2M) lacked an authorised nominee and Mr Tubb had not yet received the Master’s authority. However, the trust deed did not prescribe a minimum number of trustees or a specific quorum, only requiring decisions to be made by majority. Thus, the resolution was validly passed by a majority of authorised trustees. Regarding beneficiary consent, the applicants failed to prove that the second, third, and fourth applicants had accepted benefits under the trust deed prior to the amendment, and therefore their consent...

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 56
Parties
Applicant: Paul Jozua Joubert; Applicant: Liesel de Candia; Applicant: Christiaan Johannes Joubert; Applicant: Madri Joubert; Respondent: Sonia Joubert; Respondent: Paul Jozua Joubert N.O.; Respondent: Jurgens Johannes Tubb N.O.; Respondent: C2M Trust Management Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Carel Gert Steenkamp N.O.; Respondent: Jurgens Johannes Tubb N.O. (executor of estate late Christiaan Johannes Joubert); Respondent: Master of the High Court, Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Case Number
9168/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application for Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed in respect of prayers 1.1 and 1.2; declaratory relief granted in respect of prayer 1.3; costs awarded to first respondent.
Judges
Bozalek
Legal Topics
Trust Deed Variation, Stipulatio Alteri, Beneficiary Acceptance, Trustee Quorum, Trust Property Control Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trust Deed Variation Stipulatio Alteri Beneficiary Acceptance Trustee Quorum Trust Property Control Act

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Jozua Joubert

Applicant

Liesel de Candia

Applicant

Christiaan Johannes Joubert

Applicant

Madri Joubert

Applicant

Sonia Joubert

Respondent

Paul Jozua Joubert N.O.

Respondent

Jurgens Johannes Tubb N.O.

Respondent

C2M Trust Management Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Carel Gert Steenkamp N.O.

Respondent

Jurgens Johannes Tubb N.O. (executor of estate late Christiaan Johannes Joubert)

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application for Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the resolution of 19 September 2014 introducing a further beneficiary to the trust was valid.
  2. 2 Whether the trust deed required a minimum quorum of trustees for valid resolutions.
  3. 3 Whether the original beneficiaries had accepted benefits under the trust deed, thereby requiring their consent for amendments.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, at the time the disputed resolution was passed, only two trustees—the testator and the first applicant—were properly authorised to act, as the corporate trustee (C2M) lacked an authorised nominee and Mr Tubb had not yet received the Master’s authority. However, the trust deed did not prescribe a minimum number of trustees or a specific quorum, only requiring decisions to be made by majority. Thus, the resolution was validly passed by a majority of authorised trustees. Regarding beneficiary consent, the applicants failed to prove that the second, third, and fourth applicants had accepted benefits under the trust deed prior to the amendment, and therefore their consent...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed in respect of prayers 1.1 and 1.2; declaratory relief granted in respect of prayer 1.3; costs awarded to first respondent.

Orders

  • The application for the relief in prayers 1.1 and 1.2 of the notice of motion is dismissed with costs.
  • Such costs are those incurred by the first respondent and are to be borne by the applicants jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved, and shall include the costs of two counsel where so employed. These costs will include the costs of the postponement on 16 November 2018.