South Africa Case Law

Smart NO v Burne No and Others (10194/2011)

Smart NO v Burne No and Others (10194/2011) [2013] ZAKZDHC 59 (19 July 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

10194/2011

Judge

Nkosi

The court found that Mia, through her mother and guardian, had accepted the benefits conferred by the trust deed, as evidenced by substantial payments made for her support and education. This acceptance vested rights in Mia as a beneficiary. Once such rights are vested, the donor and trustees cannot lawfully amend the trust deed to remove the beneficiary or substitute another without the beneficiary's consent or that of her legal guardian. The purported amendments to the trust deed, which replaced Mia with the Lumiato Foundation as beneficiary, were executed without such consent and are there…

Source excerpt

• Trust Deed Variation
• Beneficiary Rights
• Stipulatio Alteri
• Acceptance Of Benefit

Potgieter v Potgieter NO and Others (629/2010)

Potgieter v Potgieter NO and Others (629/2010) [2011] ZASCA 181; 2012 (1) SA 637 (SCA) (30 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

629/2010

Judges

Navsa, Brand, Van Heerden, Leach, Majiedt

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a trust deed variation was invalid because beneficiaries had already accepted the benefits, so their consent was required.

• Trust Variation
• Beneficiary Rights
• Acceptance Of Benefit
• Specific Performance
• Trust Property Control Act
• Contract For Benefit Of Third Party

J.W.P en n Ander v A.M.J.P N.O en Andere (29875/08)

J.W.P en n Ander v A.M.J.P N.O en Andere (29875/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 549 (6 April 2010)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29875/08

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The court held a trust amendment invalid for lack of beneficiary acceptance, but fashioned equitable relief so the applicants received one-fifth each of the trust value.

• Trust Amendment
• Acceptance Of Benefit
• Specific Performance
• Public Policy
• Constitutional Values
• Removal Of Trustee

Wessels NO v De Jager NO and Another (657/98)

Wessels NO v De Jager NO and Another (657/98) [2000] ZASCA 44; 2000 (4) SA 924 (SCA) ; [2000] 4 All SA 440 (A) (22 September 2000)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

657/98

Judges

Van Heerden, Smalberger, Olivier, Zulman, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the insolvent does not acquire a right to the insurance policy benefit or inheritance until he accepts the benefit. Prior to acceptance, he only has a competency, not a right, and this competency does not vest in the curator of the insolvent estate. The court found the appellant's argument that such a competency constitutes a right to be unfounded. The appeal was dismissed with costs, and a special costs order was made against the appellant for including unnecessary documents in the appeal record.

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Estate
• Acceptance Of Benefit
• Intestate Succession
• Insurance Policy Benefit