Meier and Others v Du Toit N.O and Others (20736/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 36 (27 February 2023)

Meier and Others v Du Toit N.O and Others (20736/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 36 (27 February 2023)

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully excluded from trustee meetings and deprived of notice and the opportunity to be heard, in breach of the trust deed's requirements for joint action and proper procedure. The meetings at which Van Zyl and Du Toit were appointed, and the applicant was removed, were not validly constituted, as the applicant was intentionally excluded and no proper written instrument was executed by the donor as required by the trust deed. The removal was arbitrary and unsupported by good cause. The appointments of Van Zyl and Du Toit as trustees were invalid, and the applicant's removal was set aside. The Master was directed to correct the records and, if...

Citation
[2023] ZAWCHC 36
Parties
Applicant: Margo Meier; Applicant: Marné Meier; Applicant: Morné Meier; Respondent: Johannes Stephanus Gerhardus Du Toit N.O.; Respondent: Johan Hurter Van Zyl N.O.; Respondent: Mari Haywood N.O.; Respondent: Retha Stockhoff N.O.; Respondent: Stellenbosch Fiduciary Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Master of the Western Cape High Court
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2023
Case Number
20736/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Outcome
Application granted; removal and appointments declared unlawful and invalid; Master to correct records and consider appointment of further trustees; costs reserved for further submissions.
Judges
P.A.L. Gamble
Legal Topics
Trustee Removal, Trust Deed Interpretation, Joint Action of Trustees, Arbitrary Decision, Notice and Hearing, Appointment of Trustees
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trustee Removal Trust Deed Interpretation Joint Action of Trustees Arbitrary Decision Notice and Hearing Appointment of Trustees

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margo Meier

Applicant

Marné Meier

Applicant

Morné Meier

Applicant

Johannes Stephanus Gerhardus Du Toit N.O.

Respondent

Johan Hurter Van Zyl N.O.

Respondent

Mari Haywood N.O.

Respondent

Retha Stockhoff N.O.

Respondent

Stellenbosch Fiduciary Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Master of the Western Cape High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the removal of the applicant as trustee of the Meier Family Trust was lawful and valid.
  2. 2 Whether the appointments of the first and second respondents as trustees were in accordance with the trust deed.
  3. 3 Whether meetings of trustees were properly convened and whether the applicant was entitled to notice and participation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully excluded from trustee meetings and deprived of notice and the opportunity to be heard, in breach of the trust deed's requirements for joint action and proper procedure. The meetings at which Van Zyl and Du Toit were appointed, and the applicant was removed, were not validly constituted, as the applicant was intentionally excluded and no proper written instrument was executed by the donor as required by the trust deed. The removal was arbitrary and unsupported by good cause. The appointments of Van Zyl and Du Toit as trustees were invalid, and the applicant's removal was set aside. The Master was directed to correct the records and, if...

Court Disposition

Application granted; removal and appointments declared unlawful and invalid; Master to correct records and consider appointment of further trustees; costs reserved for further submissions.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first and second respondents' appointments as trustees of the Meier Family Trust are unlawful, invalid, and of no force and effect.
  • The sixth respondent (Master) is authorized and directed to remove the first and second respondents as trustees of the Trust.