Marais v Naude and Others (10648/84) [1987] ZASCA 62; [1987] 2 All SA 332 (A) (29 May 1987)

Marais v Naude and Others (10648/84) [1987] ZASCA 62; [1987] 2 All SA 332 (A) (29 May 1987)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trust deed, as amended, provides for a maximum of four trustees. The 'right of supplementation' in clause 3 refers only to the power to fill vacancies among the original trustees, not to co-opt additional trustees beyond the prescribed maximum. Clause 5 must be read in conjunction with clause 3, confirming that only vacancies may be filled, and the total number of trustees cannot exceed four. The appointments of trustees beyond this number were ultra vires and invalid. The only valid appointment after the death of an original trustee was that of Dr Schumann. The court further held that the appellant failed to show sufficient grounds for the court...

Citation
[1987] ZASCA 62
Parties
Appellant: J A Marais; Respondent: S M Naude; Respondent: Tew Schumann; Respondent: J J de Beer; Respondent: I W Ferreira; Respondent: C F Ziervogel; Respondent: S A van der Westhuizen; Respondent: M J van Schalkwyk; Respondent: J B M Hertzog (JNR)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 1987
Case Number
10648/84
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo, Following Two Consolidated Applications Regarding the Appointment and Validity of Trustees of the Pieter Neethling Trust.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Corbett, Joubert, Smalberger, Vivier, Boshoff
Legal Topics
Trust Deed Interpretation, Trustee Appointment, Ultra Vires Decisions
Land and Property Trust Deed Interpretation Trustee Appointment Ultra Vires Decisions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J A Marais

Appellant

S M Naude

Respondent

Tew Schumann

Respondent

J J de Beer

Respondent

I W Ferreira

Respondent

C F Ziervogel

Respondent

S A van der Westhuizen

Respondent

M J van Schalkwyk

Respondent

J B M Hertzog (JNR)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo, Following Two Consolidated Applications Regarding the Appointment and Validity of Trustees of the Pieter Neethling Trust.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trust deed of the Pieter Neethling Trust provides for a maximum of only four trustees.
  2. 2 Who among the nine current trustees are legally appointed trustees under the trust deed.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in refusing to appoint the unlawful trustees as lawful trustees.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trust deed, as amended, provides for a maximum of four trustees. The 'right of supplementation' in clause 3 refers only to the power to fill vacancies among the original trustees, not to co-opt additional trustees beyond the prescribed maximum. Clause 5 must be read in conjunction with clause 3, confirming that only vacancies may be filled, and the total number of trustees cannot exceed four. The appointments of trustees beyond this number were ultra vires and invalid. The only valid appointment after the death of an original trustee was that of Dr Schumann. The court further held that the appellant failed to show sufficient grounds for the court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • If the respondents are unable to recover costs from the appellant personally, the costs must be paid by the Pieter Neethling Trust (inter vivos).