Slabbert v Van Der Westhuizen N.O and Others (115/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 109 (4 October 2024)

Slabbert v Van Der Westhuizen N.O and Others (115/2022) [2024] ZAECMKHC 109 (4 October 2024)

The applicant failed to establish that the appointments of the first and second respondents as trustees were invalid or void, as their appointments were properly authorised by the Master and in accordance with the trust deed. The applicant did not demonstrate any conduct by the respondents that imperilled the trust...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAECMKHC 109
Parties
Applicant: Jaco Slabbert; Respondent: Gizelle Klara Van Der Westhuizen N.O.; Respondent: Hugo Van Der Westhuizen N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
115/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Main Application and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Rugunanan
Legal Topics
Trust Property Control Act, Removal of Trustee, Fiduciary Duties, Motion Proceedings, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trust Property Control Act Removal of Trustee Fiduciary Duties Motion Proceedings Costs Award

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jaco Slabbert

Applicant

Gizelle Klara Van Der Westhuizen N.O.

Respondent

Hugo Van Der Westhuizen N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Main Application and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointments of the first and second respondents as trustees of the LA Trust were invalid or void.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the first and second respondents, allegedly in refusing to account, justifies their removal as trustees under section 20(1) of the Trust Property Control Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to orders compelling the respondents to account and for costs against them.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish that the appointments of the first and second respondents as trustees were invalid or void, as their appointments were properly authorised by the Master and in accordance with the trust deed. The applicant did not demonstrate any conduct by the respondents that imperilled the trust property or its administration, nor any overt refusal to account. The factual disputes raised were not properly ventilated in the founding affidavit, and the applicant's reliance on material from the contempt application was misplaced, as that application was not pursued and its annexures were not assimilated into the main application. The applicant's prayers for removal and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The main application is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the first and second respondents' costs on the scale as between party and party, including counsel's fees on scale 'C' in terms of uniform rule 67A.