Download PDF

South Africa Judgment

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Tsebe v Absa Trust Limited and Others (18079/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 399 (4 August 2020)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the applicant, being a major and the sole beneficiary of the trust, had immediate vested rights in the trust fund according to the Trust Deed. There was no evidence of mental incapacity or any other legal impediment preventing the applicant from managing the trust monies. The respondent did not provide substantive opposition and indicated willingness to abide by the court's decision. The court exercised its discretion under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act and ordered the termination of the trust, allowing the applicant full control over the trust assets.

Court disposition

Application granted; the trust is terminated with immediate effect.

Orders

  • The Trust is terminated with immediate effect.
  • The trust monies are to be paid into the trust account of the applicant's attorney for his benefit and disposal.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Koketso Tsebe

Applicant Counsel: K Nwaila

Absa Trust Limited

Respondent Counsel: Adv C.B Ellis

The Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Urgent Application / Application for Termination of Trust

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that he is a major male and the sole beneficiary of the trust established after his successful claim against the Road Accident Fund. He contended that clause 5.1 of the Trust Deed grants him immediate vested rights in the trust fund. He asserted that there is no evidence of mental incapacity preventing him from managing the trust monies and invoked his constitutional rights to control his property.
Respondent
The first respondent, Absa Trust Limited, was appointed as the sole trustee and opposed the application without providing sufficient evidence of the applicant's incapacity. In its heads of argument, the respondent indicated that it would abide by the decision of the court. The second respondent, the Master of the High Court, did not actively oppose the application.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988

    A court has discretion to terminate a trust if certain circumstances arise or are present, as provided in section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988.

  2. 02

    Clause 5.1 of the Trust Deed

    A beneficiary with immediate vested rights in the trust fund may apply for termination of the trust if there is no legal impediment to his capacity to manage the funds.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the applicant, being a major and the sole beneficiary of the trust, had immediate vested rights in the trust fund according to the Trust Deed. There was no evidence of mental incapacity or any other legal impediment preventing the applicant from managing the trust monies. The respondent did not provide substantive opposition and indicated willingness to abide by the court's decision. The court exercised its discretion under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act and ordered the termination of the trust, allowing the applicant full control over the trust assets.

Obiter and limits

  • The diligence of the respondent in managing the applicant's monies was not relevant to the determination of the application.
  • The manner in which the applicant chooses to deal with his monies after termination of the trust is not the concern of the respondent.

Court disposition

Application granted; the trust is terminated with immediate effect.

  • The Trust is terminated with immediate effect.
  • The trust monies are to be paid into the trust account of the applicant's attorney for his benefit and disposal.
  • Each party shall pay its own costs.

Source and reliance status

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Judgment

[2020] ZAGPPHC 399

IN

THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)

CASE NO: 18079/2020

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

KOKETSO

TSEBE

Applicant

AND

ABSA

TRUST

LIMITED

First Respondent

THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

Second Respondent

JUDGMENT

FABRICIUS J

[1] The applicant herein, a major male, seeks an order terminating a trust that was established after he succeeded with a claim for damages against the Road Accident Fund. He was the sole beneficiary of such Trust.

[2] Respondent was appointed as the sole Trustee. It obviously acts through an employee, who need not be joined in these proceedings, contrary to Respondent’s contention.

[3] According to cl.5.1 of the Trust Deed applicant will have immediate vested rights in the trust fund.

[4] It is difficult to discern on which basis Respondent opposed this application. There is no or insufficient evidence that Applicant

cannot deal with the trust monies on the basis of mental incapacity. In Respondents’ heads of argument it is stated that respondent will abide by the decision of the court.

[5] There is no need to deal with collateral issues such as whether or not the Respondent diligently dealt with applicant’s monies to his satisfaction or not.

[6] It is not its concern how applicant now wishes to deal with his monies. According to the provisions of s13 of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 a court has a discretion to terminate a Trust if certain circumstances arise or are present. I am satisfied that Applicant also has the constitutional rights that he refers to in par 4 of his Replying Affidavit.

[7] The following order is therefore made:

7.1 The Trust is terminated with immediate effect;

7.2 The Trust monies are to be paid into the Trust account of Applicant’s Attorney for his benefit and disposal.

7.3 Each party shall pay its own costs.

H

FABRICIUS

JUDGE

OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

DATE OF HEARING: NO

ORAL HEARING

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 4 AUGUST 2020

FOR THE APPLICANT: K NWAILA

INSTRUCTED BY: NWAILA ATTORNEYS INC

FOR THE RESPONDENT: ADV C.B ELLIS

INSTRUCTED BY: GILDENHUYS MALATJI INC

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.