South Africa Case Law

Nieman v Master of the High Court and Others (UM 228/2023)

Nieman v Master of the High Court and Others (UM 228/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 173 (10 July 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM 228/2023

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court held that it does not have the power, either at common law or under the Administration of Estates Act, to interdict and restrain the Master from appointing a nominated executor testamentary. The statutory scheme vests the discretion to appoint executors in the Master, subject only to specific grounds for refusal set out in the Act. The court’s power to remove an executor for undesirability arises only after appointment, not before. The applicant failed to follow the prescribed procedure for objecting to the appointment with the Master and did not satisfy the requirements for a final…

Source excerpt

• Appointment Of Executor
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Final Interdict
• Judicial Review Of Master
• Costs Award

Arnold v EOH Managed Services PS (PTY) Ltd and Others (24877/2021)

Arnold v EOH Managed Services PS (PTY) Ltd and Others (24877/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 757 (27 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

24877/2021

Judge

C Todd

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a winding-up order and review a Master’s claim-allowance decision, finding no fraud-based basis for relief.

• Winding Up Of Companies
• Creditors Meeting
• Judicial Review Of Master
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Fraudulent Documentation
• Piercing Corporate Veil

Derrick Giyose t/a Giyose Holding Consultants and Associates v Master of the High Court, Kimberly and Another (2137/2019)

Derrick Giyose t/a Giyose Holding Consultants and Associates v Master of the High Court, Kimberly and Another (2137/2019) [2021] ZANCHC 43 (1 October 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2137/2019

Judge

Williams

The High Court dismissed an application by an investigator seeking payment from the Master for trust-investigation fees, holding the Master retained statutory discretion over costs.

• Trust Property Control Act
• Costs Of Investigation
• Judicial Review Of Master
• Contractual Liability
• Trust-property-control-act
• Master-of-the-high-court

Friedrich and Others v Smit N.O. and Others (A1056/2013)

Friedrich and Others v Smit N.O. and Others (A1056/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1006; [2015] 4 All SA 805 (GP) (13 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A1056/13

Judges

Murphy, Molopa-Sethosa, Tlhapi

Appeal about a surviving spouse’s maintenance claim against an estate and the Master’s power under the Administration of Estates Act.

• Maintenance Of Surviving Spouses Act
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Quantum Of Maintenance
• Judicial Review Of Master
• Liquidation And Distribution Account
• Surviving-spouse-maintenance

Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (2475/2008)

Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (2475/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 219 (13 June 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2475/2008

Judges

Thring, Bozalek

The court set aside the Master’s refusal to tax a liquidator’s fees above the tariff and held that good cause existed for remuneration beyond the tariff.

• Liquidator Remuneration
• Companies Act Section 384
• Judicial Review Of Master
• Insolvency Act Tariff
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Liquidator-remuneration

Nel N.O and Another v Master of the High Court Eastern Cape and Others (A9/03)

Nel N.O and Another v Master of the High Court Eastern Cape and Others (A9/03) [2004] ZASCA 26; 2005 (1) SA 276 (SCA) (1 April 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

A9/03

Judges

Howie, Harms, Zulman, Jones, Van Heerden

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Master’s discretion under section 384(2) of the Companies Act is wide and must be exercised to ensure reasonable remuneration for liquidators, considering all relevant factors including time spent, complexity, and the nature of the estate. The prescribed tariff is a guideline, not an absolute entitlement. The appellants failed to demonstrate that the Master’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or clearly wrong. The Master gave the appellants multiple opportunities to motivate their claimed fee and considered a range of relevant factors. The court fou…

Source excerpt

• Liquidator Remuneration
• Companies Act Section 384
• Judicial Review Of Master
• Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act