Ras NO and Others v Van der Meulen and Another (635/09) [2010] ZASCA 163; 2011 (4) SA 17 (SCA) (1 December 2010)

Ras NO and Others v Van der Meulen and Another (635/09) [2010] ZASCA 163; 2011 (4) SA 17 (SCA) (1 December 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that only a beneficiary of a trust has standing to seek removal of trustees. The High Court erred in finding that the respondent had sufficient interest to seek relief absent beneficiary status and in ordering the Master to investigate the trust, as such discretion lies solely with the Master. The issue of whether the respondent is a beneficiary was not properly determined by the High Court and was not a live issue on the papers. The trustees' argument that the respondent had not accepted her nomination prior to removal was not adequately raised or explored in the proceedings below. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the High Court for the hearing...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 163
Parties
Appellant: Margaretha Aletta Ras NO; Appellant: Margaretha Aletta Visser (born Ras) NO; Appellant: Pieter Visser NO; Respondent: Nicoline Van Der Meulen; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2010
Case Number
635/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and matter remitted for oral evidence on beneficiary status.
Judges
Lewis, Shongwe, Leach, Ebrahim, K Pillay
Legal Topics
Trust Beneficiary Status, Removal of Trustees, Variation of Trust Deed, Motion Proceedings, Leave to Appeal
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trust Beneficiary Status Removal of Trustees Variation of Trust Deed Motion Proceedings Leave to Appeal

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaretha Aletta Ras NO

Appellant

Margaretha Aletta Visser (born Ras) NO

Appellant

Pieter Visser NO

Appellant

Nicoline Van Der Meulen

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is a beneficiary of the Bokfontein Trust.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is entitled to seek removal of the trustees.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court was correct in ordering the Master to investigate the administration of the trust.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that only a beneficiary of a trust has standing to seek removal of trustees. The High Court erred in finding that the respondent had sufficient interest to seek relief absent beneficiary status and in ordering the Master to investigate the trust, as such discretion lies solely with the Master. The issue of whether the respondent is a beneficiary was not properly determined by the High Court and was not a live issue on the papers. The trustees' argument that the respondent had not accepted her nomination prior to removal was not adequately raised or explored in the proceedings below. Accordingly, the matter must be remitted to the High Court for the hearing...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside and matter remitted for oral evidence on beneficiary status.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted to the applicants.
  • The appeal is upheld to the extent that the order made by the court a quo on 14 January 2009 is set aside and replaced with an order referring the application for hearing of oral evidence on whether the respondent is a beneficiary of the Bokfontein Trust or has been validly removed as such.