Pretorius and Another v Pretorius N.O. and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 204; 15895/2021 (15 March 2023)

Pretorius and Another v Pretorius N.O. and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 204; 15895/2021 (15 March 2023)

The court found that the respondents did not afford the first applicant her right to be heard before removing her as trustee, thereby disregarding the audi alteram partem rule and constitutional provisions. The respondents' reliance on majority decision and trust deed clauses did not justify the removal in the absence of procedural fairness. The Constitution is the supreme law and must be complied with at all times. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects of success for the respondents in an approach that overlooks the rules of natural justice and constitutional rights. Furthermore, the outcome of the pending action does not preclude further recourse for aggrieved...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 204
Parties
Applicant: Jana Annelise Pretorius; Respondent: Jana Annelise Pretorius NO; Respondent: Jen Lievens NO; Respondent: Rhino Pride Foundation; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2023
Case Number
15895/2021
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order of 14 September 2022
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Maumela
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Removal of Trustee, Trust Property Control Act, Audi Alteram Partem, Constitutional Rights
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Removal of Trustee Trust Property Control Act Audi Alteram Partem Constitutional Rights

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jana Annelise Pretorius

Applicant

Jana Annelise Pretorius NO

Respondent

Jen Lievens NO

Respondent

Rhino Pride Foundation

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment and Order of 14 September 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success in their appeal against the judgment and order of 14 September 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the removal of the first applicant as trustee was in the interests of the trust and its beneficiaries and procedurally correct.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' reliance on majority decision and trust deed clauses justified the removal without affording the first applicant her right to be heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents did not afford the first applicant her right to be heard before removing her as trustee, thereby disregarding the audi alteram partem rule and constitutional provisions. The respondents' reliance on majority decision and trust deed clauses did not justify the removal in the absence of procedural fairness. The Constitution is the supreme law and must be complied with at all times. The court concluded that there are no reasonable prospects of success for the respondents in an approach that overlooks the rules of natural justice and constitutional rights. Furthermore, the outcome of the pending action does not preclude further recourse for aggrieved...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.