Makgoba and Others v Ledwaba NO and Others (054/2018) [2018] ZASCA 181 (4 December 2018)

Makgoba and Others v Ledwaba NO and Others (054/2018) [2018] ZASCA 181 (4 December 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' term of office as trustees expired on 26 June 2013 in accordance with the Trust Deed, and any subsequent letters of authority were invalid. The continued occupation of office by the appellants was unlawful and contrary to both the Trust Deed and a prior court order. The High Court's order reinstating the appellants and then requiring their immediate resignation was unnecessary and convoluted. The proper process is for the first and second respondents to convene a general meeting of the Trust within 60 days to nominate and appoint a new Board of Trustees, excluding the first, second, and third applicants who are ineligible. Only the 603...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 181
Parties
Appellant: Thupane Joseph Makgoba; Appellant: Tfhigo Frans Magoele; Appellant: Grace Mahlodi Mashaba; Appellant: Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo; Appellant: Samuel Masetla; Appellant: Joseph Motswi; Appellant: Motlatso Ivy Magoele; Appellant: Mantila Ronny Hlokwa; Appellant: Ajita Simon Asiti; Appellant: Thetele Joseph Malatji; Appellant: Refilwe Irene Letsoalo; Appellant: Matlou Jaqueline Makgoba; Appellant: Makgoba Asset Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Maponya Lazarus Ledwaba NO; Respondent: Gisela Stols N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria; Respondent: The Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Provincial Shared Services Centre of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Limpopo Province; Respondent: The Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo Province; Respondent: The Mamphoku Makgoba Community’s Steering Committee
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2018
Case Number
054/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; High Court order replaced with new orders regarding trusteeship and beneficiary meetings.
Judges
Seriti, Wallis, Swain, Mocumie, Rogers
Legal Topics
Trustees Removal, Trust Deed Interpretation, Beneficiary Verification, Fiduciary Duties, Restitution of Land Rights, Court Powers Under Trust Property Control Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Trustees Removal Trust Deed Interpretation Beneficiary Verification Fiduciary Duties Restitution of Land Rights +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thupane Joseph Makgoba

Appellant

Tfhigo Frans Magoele

Appellant

Grace Mahlodi Mashaba

Appellant

Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo

Appellant

Samuel Masetla

Appellant

Joseph Motswi

Appellant

Motlatso Ivy Magoele

Appellant

Mantila Ronny Hlokwa

Appellant

Ajita Simon Asiti

Appellant

Thetele Joseph Malatji

Appellant

Refilwe Irene Letsoalo

Appellant

Matlou Jaqueline Makgoba

Appellant

Makgoba Asset Management (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Maponya Lazarus Ledwaba NO

Respondent

Gisela Stols N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Gauteng Division, Pretoria

Respondent

The Minister for Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Provincial Shared Services Centre of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, Limpopo Province

Respondent

The Regional Land Claims Commissioner, Limpopo Province

Respondent

The Mamphoku Makgoba Community’s Steering Committee

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' term of office as trustees had expired and whether they were entitled to remain in office until new trustees were elected.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct to reinstate the appellants as trustees and then order their immediate resignation.
  3. 3 Whether a verification meeting of beneficiaries was required before the appointment of new trustees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' term of office as trustees expired on 26 June 2013 in accordance with the Trust Deed, and any subsequent letters of authority were invalid. The continued occupation of office by the appellants was unlawful and contrary to both the Trust Deed and a prior court order. The High Court's order reinstating the appellants and then requiring their immediate resignation was unnecessary and convoluted. The proper process is for the first and second respondents to convene a general meeting of the Trust within 60 days to nominate and appoint a new Board of Trustees, excluding the first, second, and third applicants who are ineligible. Only the 603...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; High Court order replaced with new orders regarding trusteeship and beneficiary meetings.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first to twelfth appellants’ term of office as trustees terminated with effect from 26 June 2013, and any subsequent letters of authority issued to them are set aside.
  • The first and second respondents are to convene and hold a general meeting of the Trust within 60 calendar days for the purpose of nominating and appointing a new Board of Trustees, excluding the first, second, and third applicants.