South Africa Case Law

Sandenbergh and Another v Master of the High Court and Another (087032-2023)

Sandenbergh and Another v Master of the High Court and Another (087032-2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 436 (29 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

087032/2023

Judge

E van der Schyff

The Full Court's binding precedent in In Re Protection of Certain Personal Injury Awards requires that references to the Administration of Estates Act and curator bonis remuneration be removed from protective trust orders and deeds. Trustee remuneration and administration costs must be set out in detail in the court order or trust instrument, based on evidence of complexity and administrative burden. The applicants' proposed fee structure, including fixed drafting and registration fees, annual management fees, and specific administration costs, is reasonable and equitable for the consolidated…

Source excerpt

• Protective Trusts
• Trustee Remuneration
• Administration Of Estates Act
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Variation Of Court Orders

Vorster N.O v Buthelezi and Others (10754/2022P)

Vorster N.O v Buthelezi and Others (10754/2022P) [2023] ZAKZPHC 109; [2023] 4 All SA 889 (KZP) (13 October 2023)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

10754/2022P

Judge

E Bezuidenhout

The court removed four trustees of the Ubunye Be Afrika Development Trust after finding they misapplied trust funds and acted contrary to the trust deed.

• Trust Property Control Act
• Removal Of Trustee
• Fiduciary Duties
• Conflict Of Interest
• Trustee Remuneration
• Charitable Trust Objects

Warricker NO and Others v Master of the High Court, Johannesburg (28265/15)

Warricker NO and Others v Master of the High Court, Johannesburg (28265/15) [2017] ZAGPJHC 74 (14 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28265/15

Judge

C J Van der Westhuizen

The court found that the Master was obliged to consider the applicants' request for a special fee at the stage of the First Liquidation and Distribution Account, as the relevant work had already been performed and the remuneration for that work was due for determination. The Master's decision to defer consideration of the special fee and refuse confirmation of the account constituted administrative action reviewable under section 6(2) of PAJA. The respondent erred in law by deferring the decision to a later stage, as the discretion to increase or decrease fees must be exercised when the event…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Trustee Remuneration
• Liquidation And Distribution Account
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action

Council for Medical Schemes and Others v Liberty Medical Scheme and Another (35254/2012)

Council for Medical Schemes and Others v Liberty Medical Scheme and Another (35254/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 542 (28 May 2013)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

35254/2012

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

High Court set aside a medical scheme’s resignation and restraint agreement with a former trustee, holding the payments were ultra vires and ordering repayment.

• Medical Schemes Act
• Ultra Vires
• Trustee Remuneration
• Fiduciary Duties
• Restraint Of Trade
• Disgorgement Of Profit

Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (643/07)

Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (643/07) [2008] ZASCA 155; 2009 (3) SA 571 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 39 (SCA) (27 November 2008)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

643/07

Judges

Cameron, Mthiyane, Mhlantla

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Master of the High Court did not err in refusing to increase the appellant's remuneration. The administration of the estate was straightforward, involving only the sale of a single immovable property and one secured creditor. The appellant had already received the prescribed fee for the sale. The time spent on the estate, while relevant, could not be considered in isolation or as the dominant factor. The Master properly considered all relevant circumstances and provided rational reasons for the refusal. The statutory tariff, though outdated, cannot be…

Source excerpt

• Trustee Remuneration
• Insolvency Act Section 63
• Review Of Administrative Action
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act

Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (13493/06)

Klopper NO v Master of the High Court (13493/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 139 (3 August 2007)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

13493/06

Judge

Bosielo

The High Court dismissed a trustee’s review of the Master’s refusal to increase remuneration under the Insolvency Act, finding no good cause was shown.

• Insolvency Act
• Trustee Remuneration
• Judicial Review
• Good Cause Requirement
• Insolvency-act
• Trustee-remuneration

Van Staden v Master of the High Court and Others (3114/04)

Van Staden v Master of the High Court and Others (3114/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 29 (14 March 2005)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

3114/04

Judge

Ranchod

The court found that the applicant's objections to the liquidation and distribution account lacked merit. Trustee fees were correctly determined by the Master, considering both immovable and movable assets were sold. Auctioneer and attorney costs were properly approved and substantiated. Creditor claims were supported by judgments and documentation, and the applicant failed to provide evidence of error or fraud. The applicant did not establish a prima facie case for reopening the account. Furthermore, dividends had already been paid to creditors, rendering the account final and precluding reo…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act
• Liquidation And Distribution Account
• Trustee Remuneration
• Creditor Claims
• Condonation
• Finality Of Account

Gilbey Distillers & Vintners (Pty) Ltd. and Others v Morris NO and Another (193/89)

Gilbey Distillers & Vintners (Pty) Ltd. and Others v Morris NO and Another (193/89) [1990] ZASCA 134; 1991 (1) SA 648 (AD); [1991] 1 All SA 406 (A) (16 November 1990)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

193/89

Judges

Joubert, Smalberger, Nestadt, Kumleben, Friedman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that, even assuming the appellants carried on the business and effected sales, the Master’s confirmation of the liquidation and distribution accounts was duly made in accordance with the prescribed procedures. The accounts were open for inspection, no objections were lodged, and dividends were paid. The finality provision in section 112 of the Insolvency Act precluded reopening the accounts except on grounds of fraud or iustus error. The court found no evidence of fraud or bad faith on the part of the trustee; any misrepresentation was at most an innocent mist…

Source excerpt

• Insolvency Act
• Trustee Remuneration
• Liquidation And Distribution Accounts
• Review Of Master Decisions
• Finality Of Accounts