Malatji v Ledwaba NO and Others (925/2019) [2019] ZALMPPHC 40 (8 August 2019)

Malatji v Ledwaba NO and Others (925/2019) [2019] ZALMPPHC 40 (8 August 2019)

The Court found that the procedure for the election of trustees, including proxy voting, was agreed upon by the majority of beneficiaries present at the general meeting, including the applicant. The applicant did not object to the procedure at any stage prior to or during the meeting. The Trust Deed and the SCA order do not expressly prohibit proxy voting, and the intention of the SCA was to resolve the dysfunction of the Trust and allow beneficiaries to elect new trustees in a manner agreed upon by them. The Court held that it does not have the power to amend or substitute the SCA order, and any challenge to the procedure should be directed to the SCA. However, the Court found that the...

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Thetele Joseph Malatji; Respondent: Mapanya Lazarus Ledwaba N.O; Respondent: Gisela Stola 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: Refilwe Irene Letsoalo; Respondent: Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo; Respondent: Zili Masetla; Respondent: Phutiane Curry Letsoalo; Respondent: Mankuroane Modiba; Respondent: Ali Maake; Respondent: Veronica Sebolwana Motswi; Respondent: Frans Mokoena Kubjana; Respondent: Jimmy Kubjana; Respondent: David Mehlape-Malatji; Respondent: Maite Moseri; Respondent: Mary Ntoampe; Respondent: Jane Mahasha; Respondent: Mokopa William Monyama
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2019
Case Number
925/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.V Semenya
Legal Topics
Trust Deed Interpretation, Election of Trustees, Proxy Voting, Structural Interdict, Letters of Authority, Compliance With Court Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trust Deed Interpretation Election of Trustees Proxy Voting Structural Interdict Letters of Authority Compliance With Court Order

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thetele Joseph Malatji

Applicant

Mapanya Lazarus Ledwaba N.O

Respondent

Gisela Stola 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

Refilwe Irene Letsoalo

Respondent

Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo

Respondent

Zili Masetla

Respondent

Phutiane Curry Letsoalo

Respondent

Mankuroane Modiba

Respondent

Ali Maake

Respondent

Veronica Sebolwana Motswi

Respondent

Frans Mokoena Kubjana

Respondent

Jimmy Kubjana

Respondent

David Mehlape-Malatji

Respondent

Maite Moseri

Respondent

Mary Ntoampe

Respondent

Jane Mahasha

Respondent

Mokopa William Monyama

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the election of new trustees for the Mamphoku Makgoba Community Trust was conducted in accordance with the Supreme Court of Appeal order and the Trust Deed.
  2. 2 Whether voting by proxy was permissible under the Trust Deed and the SCA order.
  3. 3 Whether this Court has the power to interpret, amend, or substitute the SCA order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the procedure for the election of trustees, including proxy voting, was agreed upon by the majority of beneficiaries present at the general meeting, including the applicant. The applicant did not object to the procedure at any stage prior to or during the meeting. The Trust Deed and the SCA order do not expressly prohibit proxy voting, and the intention of the SCA was to resolve the dysfunction of the Trust and allow beneficiaries to elect new trustees in a manner agreed upon by them. The Court held that it does not have the power to amend or substitute the SCA order, and any challenge to the procedure should be directed to the SCA. However, the Court found that the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The 3rd respondent is ordered to withdraw the letters of authority issued to the 1st and 2nd respondents.