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
Snyman v De Kooker N O and Others (400/2023) [2024] ZASCA 119; [2024] 4 All SA 47 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 136 (SCA) (2 August 2024)
The SCA held that trustees of an inter vivos trust failed to give a proper account and that the trust deed justified termination under section 13.
De Kooker N.O. and Others v Snyman (A5099/2020; 44142/2017) [2022] ZAGPJHC 774 (9 September 2022)
The court found that the respondent did not provide sufficient factual basis to justify the termination of the Trust or the removal of the trustees. The Trust deed contained clauses that could be amended to better protect the beneficiary's interests, but the respondent failed to propose specific amendments or engage with the trustees prior to litigation. The trustees had provided the requested information and acted in accordance with their duties. The order terminating the Trust and transferring funds to the respondent's attorney was potentially prejudicial and unnecessary. The appropriate re…
Source excerpt
Shabangu N.O. and others v Malumane N.O. and Others (1980/2020) [2021] ZAMPMBHC 46 (4 October 2021)
The High Court removed ten trustees of the Mbayane Community Trust for breach of fiduciary duties and ordered the trust deed amended to bar their re-election.
Shembe and Others v Shembe N.O. (CCT 08/20) [2021] ZACC 17; 2021 (11) BCLR 1238 (CC) (22 June 2021)
The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal in a church succession dispute, holding the issues were factual and academic, with no practical effect between the parties.
Strydom N.O and Others v Bennet N.O and Others (53908/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 432 (18 September 2019)
Leave to appeal against dismissal of a sequestration application was refused because the applicants failed to show a liquidated claim or a basis for sequestration.
Mabikwe v Absa Trust Limited and Another (5696/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 311 (5 September 2019)
The applicant failed to establish that the conduct of the trustee imperils the trust property or its proper administration. The trustee acted with appropriate caution regarding property acquisition and complied with fiduciary duties. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of unnecessary expenditure or mismanagement. The jurisdictional criteria for variation or termination under section 13 of the Trust Property Control Act were not met, nor was a case made for removal of the trustee under section 20. The trust remains necessary to protect the applicant's interests, and placing contr…
Source excerpt
Gowar and Another v Gowar and Others (149/2015) [2016] ZASCA 101; [2016] 3 All SA 382 (SCA); 2016 (5) SA 225 (SCA) (9 June 2016)
The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal and cross-appeal about removing trustees and terminating family trusts, finding no basis for relief on the papers.
Ras NO and Others v Van der Meulen and Another (635/09) [2010] ZASCA 163; 2011 (4) SA 17 (SCA) (1 December 2010)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that only a beneficiary of a trust has standing to seek removal of trustees. The High Court erred in finding that the respondent had sufficient interest to seek relief absent beneficiary status and in ordering the Master to investigate the trust, as such discretion lies solely with the Master. The issue of whether the respondent is a beneficiary was not properly determined by the High Court and was not a live issue on the papers. The trustees' argument that the respondent had not accepted her nomination prior to removal was not adequately raised or explored in…
Source excerpt
Explore more
