Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Van Graan N.O and Others v Waisman and Others (2509/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 27 (21 February 2023)
The court removed a trustee from two family trusts after finding ongoing conflict and fiduciary concerns made the trusts dysfunctional and imperilled their assets.
Statusfin Finansiële Dienste (Edms) Bpk v Die Trustees van Tyd tot Tyd van die IET Trust en Andere (13156/2011) [2016] ZAGPPHC 898 (11 October 2016)
The court found, on the probabilities and the evidence, that the third defendant was expressly or at least tacitly authorised by the second defendant to contract with the plaintiff for the financing agreement on behalf of the trust. The court rejected the defendants' version that the second defendant was unaware of the transaction, noting the implausibility of their evidence and their conduct before and after the agreement. The court held that the second defendant's subsequent signing of the suretyship confirmed his involvement and liability. The court further found no merit in the defence th…
Source excerpt
C.E v J.E en Andere (42949/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 245 (26 February 2015)
High Court exception dismissed in a divorce-related claim alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, seeking cancellation of a settlement and redistribution of assets, including trust property.
Adcock v Adcock and Others (3617/09) [2012] ZAECPEHC 28 (26 April 2012)
The High Court rejected an ex-wife’s claim that she, her former husband and a family trust formed a universal partnership over farm assets.
Land and Agricultural Development Bank of SA v Parker and Others (186/2003) [2004] ZASCA 56; [2004] 4 All SA 261 (SCA); 2005 (2) SA 77 (SCA) (23 September 2004)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trust deed required a minimum of three trustees in office for the trust to be bound in transactions. When only two trustees were in office, the trust suffered from incapacity and could not be bound by their actions. After the appointment of the third trustee, the joint action or proper majority decision was required, but no such meeting or consultation occurred. The Parkers' conduct in purporting to bind the trust without proper authority constituted a breach of trust. The court further found that the trust was not validly represented in the appeal to…
Source excerpt
Explore more
