Mabikwe v Absa Trust Limited and Another (5696/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 311 (5 September 2019)

Mabikwe v Absa Trust Limited and Another (5696/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 311 (5 September 2019)

The applicant failed to establish that the conduct of the trustee imperils the trust property or its proper administration. The trustee acted with appropriate caution regarding property acquisition and complied with fiduciary duties. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of unnecessary expenditure or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 311
Parties
Applicant: John Vuyo Mabikwe; Respondent: Absa Trust Limited; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2019
Case Number
5696/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Variation and Termination of Trust Order
Judges
FD Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Trust Property Control Act, Removal of Trustee, Variation of Trust Deed, Fiduciary Duties, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trust Property Control Act Removal of Trustee Variation of Trust Deed Fiduciary Duties Costs Order

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Vuyo Mabikwe

Applicant

Absa Trust Limited

Respondent

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Application for Variation and Termination of Trust Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established grounds for the removal of the trustee under section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act.
  2. 2 Whether the trust deed should be varied or the trust terminated under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act.
  3. 3 Whether the trustee has breached fiduciary duties to the beneficiary.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the conduct of the trustee imperils the trust property or its proper administration. The trustee acted with appropriate caution regarding property acquisition and complied with fiduciary duties. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of unnecessary expenditure or mismanagement. The jurisdictional criteria for variation or termination under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act were not met, nor was a case made for removal of the trustee under section 20. The trust remains necessary to protect the applicant's interests, and placing control of the funds in the applicant or his uncle would not serve the welfare of the beneficiary or...