De Moor and Another v Gunnel NO and Others (2023/101371) [2025] ZAGPJHC 619 (12 June 2025)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/101371
Judge
Senyatsi
The High Court addressed joinder and misjoinder in a will challenge, allowing citation of the executrix in her representative capacity only and refusing personal-capacity citations.
Eugene Prinsloo v Donovan Theodore Majiedt N.O and Another (257/2024) [2025] ZASCA 74 (30 May 2025)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
257/2024
Judges
Matojane, Weiner, Koen, Henney, Modiba
The SCA held that the surviving spouse had to be joined in litigation over whether life insurance proceeds were protected under section 63 of the Long-term Insurance Act.
Nunwana (Mabizela) and Others v Mara Trust and Others (3484/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 106 (17 April 2024)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
3484/2022
Judge
Van Zyl
The High Court removed a trust-removal application and counter-application from the roll because the Master of the High Court had not been served and must report on the dispute.
De Wit and Others v De Wit and Others (8370/23) [2024] ZAWCHC 101 (10 April 2024)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
8370/23
Judge
Joubert AJ
The High Court dismissed an application to terminate a family trust or remove trustees, finding the applicants had not met the requirements of the Trust Property Control Act.
Mthimunye and Others v Mthimunye and Another (037606/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1405 (4 December 2023)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
037606/2022
Judge
B.C. Wanless
The Applicants failed to discharge the onus to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the First Respondent should be removed as executor. The court found that the alleged failures and disputes did not amount to conduct justifying removal under section 54(1)(a)(v) of the Act. The First Respondent had cured any procedural defects, amended documentation to include all beneficiaries, and provided reasonable explanations for asset omissions. Mere disagreements or breakdown in relations between heirs and executor are insufficient for removal unless they impede proper administration. The court a…
Dunn N.O. v Thompson and Others (12025/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 281 (14 November 2023)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
12025/2022
Judge
J Cloete
The court interpreted a family trust deed and held that the deceased estates had no vested right to capital distributions. The respondents' striking out application succeeded.
K.H NO v H Trust and Others (035385/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1146 (6 October 2023)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
035385/2022
Judge
Strydom
The High Court dismissed an application to terminate a family trust, holding section 13 was not triggered. It ordered the parties to use the deed’s deadlock procedure.
Ntlekeni v Uberrima Phoenix (PTY) Ltd t/a Uberrima Phoenix Trust Management and Another (40778/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 709 (19 September 2022)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
40778/2021
Judge
Todd
The High Court dismissed an application by a trust beneficiary to terminate her trust and receive the capital, finding insufficient evidence of changed circumstances.
De Kock v De Kock N.O. and Others (26288/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 440 (15 June 2022)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
26288/2020
Judge
Phalamohlaka
The High Court dismissed an application to remove trust trustees, hold them in contempt, and appoint an arbitrator concerning access rights to trust property.
Haitas v Froneman and Others [2021] ZASCA 1 (6 January 2021)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
1158/2019
Judges
Petse, Zondi, van der Merwe, Nicholls, Unterhalter
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the conduct of the trustees, while not optimal in all respects, did not justify their removal under section 20(1) of the Trust Property Control Act or at common law. The court found no evidence of impropriety, personal gain, or imperilment of trust assets by the trustees. Disharmony and lack of communication between the trustees and the beneficiary, although regrettable, were insufficient grounds for removal. The trustees' appointment as directors of the trust companies was valid under the Trust Deed, and their actions in making payments to Ms Batista wer…