Aantekeninge: Trustaktes en die risiko’s van ’n onnadenkende kopiëring van template

• Citation: 2024 TSAR 306
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a7
• Published date: 11 April 2024
• Pages: 306-322
• Author: Sonnekus, J.C.
• Date: 11 April 2024

TSAR 2024 . 2 [ISSN 0257 – 7747]

306

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a7

Aantekeninge

TRUSTAKTES EN DIE RISIKO’S VAN ’N ONNADENKENDE

KOPIËRING VAN TEMPLATE

SUMMARY

TRUST DEEDS AND THE RISKS INVOLVED IN INDISCRIMINATELY RELYING ON

WELL-USED TEMPLATES

The formulat ions used in many deed s for a trust inter vivos are probably ex amples of the type of falla cy

that accepts t hat because there are thous ands if not millions of trus t deeds for a trust inter vivos that

have an identical pre amble, they must be legally valid. In m any of these trust deeds t he preamble and

rst clause in e ssence reads:

“TRUST DEED

XYZ TRUST

ENTERED INTO BETWEEN

XYZ

Identity Number 801023 4567 089

(hereinafter referred to as FOUNDER)

and

XYZ

Identity Number 801023 4567 089

And

ABC

ID nr

And

DEF

ID nr

(hereinafter referred to as TRUSTEES)

ON BEHALF OF:

THE INCOME AND CAPITAL BENEFICIARIES AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH 1.2.1 OF

THIS TRUST DEED

WHEREAS the founder is desirous of creating the trust herein referred to for and on behalf of the

aforementioned beneciaries subject to the terms and conditions as hereinafter set forth in more detail.

AND

WHEREAS the trustees declared themselves willing to accept the donation and to hold and utilise it

on behalf of the beneciaries subject to the conditions as set forth by the founder and as it is recorded

in this deed of trust;

The founder hereby donates to the trustees the amount of R100 (One Hundred Rand) which immediately

vests in the trustees in their ofcial capacity to be held in trust and administered according to the terms

of this deed.

The current trustees are as scheduled in the preamble to this deed …” (emphasis added).

In the example the a greement is seemingly c oncluded with itself by XYZ act ing simultaneously as th e

founder and as primary trustee. However, it is an established legal and logical principle that a legal

subject, with the possible exception of a recognised agency construction with an existing principal,

cannot enter i nto an agreement with himself and that any attempt to establish such a construction is

necessari ly doomed to complete nullity. In the in itial editions of LAWSA , this principle was repeat ed

without quali cation with regard to a repr esentative constr uction: “a contract is a jur istic act for which

expressions of common i ntention by at least two persons ar e required”. T he later qu alication in the

case law applies only t o the said existing pri ncipal and agency arr angements.

2024 TSAR 306

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

https://doi.org/10.47348/TSAR/2024/i2a7

TRUSTAKTES EN DIE RISIKO’S VAN ’N ONNADENKENDE KOPIËRING VAN TEMPLATE 307

[ISSN 0257 – 7747]TSAR 2024 . 2

The envisaged future trust inter vivos can be established, however, at the earliest after all the

parties i nvolved have signed the document to expr ess their agreement to t he terms incorpor ated in the

agreement. Until then, ther e is still no t rust, and no one can “in an ofcial capacity”, in the sense that

Honoré argues t hat trusteeshi p is an “ofce”, represent the non-ex istent trust.

Where a perso n seeks to conclude an alleged ag reement with hims elf, the law attaches as l ittle value

to it as to an arbitrary New Year’s resolution – no legal consequences ow from it. Such an “agreement”

is ab initio void and without any legal conse quences. Void agree ments cannot later be re ctied. This

is not to be confu sed with an incorrectly r ecorded agreement where any of t he parties to the existi ng

agreement is entitled to rely on their real consensus and to have the docume nt formally cor rected to

express their t rue common intent ion.

Apparently, the tr ust deed in th e example of the XYZ Trust a bove is void from the outset r egardless

of whether or not the ma ster of the h igh court ofcially register ed it later. Th e administ rative act

of registration by the master cannot amend the legal position and breathe legal life into a void

document.

It is submitted t hat there is an easy way out of th e self-caused “pract ice crisis” where the naïve u se of

the trust ed template of the tr ust deeds unint entionally jeopardi ses the validity of thes e trusts becau se of

the unnece ssary cloning of the found er as primary t rustee. The tr usted template should be ame nded so

that the founder d oes not allegedly contr act with himself a s trustee but me rely enters into the ag reement

with the o ther two person s identied as the original t rustees of t he XYZ Trust. I n order to give ef fect

where applicable to the interest of the founder to retain as a trustee (albeit effectively as one of the

controlling trustees) say in the execution of “his” trust, a simple additional conditional clause may

provide for a resolutive cond ition that applies if th e other two trus tees with whom he as founde r initially

signed the tr ust deed do not enter into an a greement with him wit hin the prescribed pe riod in order to

add him as an a dditional tru stee on his accept ance of all the control ling powers provided for i n the deed.

The template oft en provides for the later appoint ment of additional tru stees: “The current t rustees are

as scheduled in t he preamble to this deed … but th e trustees are ent itled to appoint additional t rustees

of their own choice … .”

1 Lank voordat daar bedenkinge was oor welke plek kunsmatige intelligensie

in die regsberoep mag inneem, is reeds dikwels onnadenkend ou voorbeelde

nageskryf i n latere oënskynlik gelyksoor tige konstruksies bloot omdat dit makli ker

is om af te skryf as om van meet af krities te besin en te formuleer, soos ook by

die herhaalde benutting van ander sjablone die geval is. (Sien Burgess AI and the

Rule of Law – The Necessar y Evolution of a Concept (2024).) Menige ou gevestigde

prokureur het voor die era van rekenaarmatige woordverwerkers jaloers gewaak

dat sy “leerklerke” nie na aoop van d ie leerklerksk ap by die deur uitgaan met sy

beproefde presedentelêer nie – dis geld werd. Dit waa raan ’n mens gewoond geraak

het, móét reg wees – of só het ook die aank laers van Galileo in 1633 gemeen toe hy

beweer het dat die son tog nie om die aarde d raai nie – al glo derduisende mense dit

al lank. Die logiese denk fout van ’n argumentum ad populum is ree ds sedert die tyd

van Aristoteles bekend.

Skynbaar is da ar juriste wat oortuig is dat d ie gereelde gebruik ook van ’n nietige

konstruksie danksy die veelvuldige benutting daarvan tot geldigheid moet lei. Die

regsveranderinge wat moes volg na Cooper NO v Die Mee ster (1992 3 SA 60 (A)) en

neerslag gevind het in die Wet op Sekerheidstelling deu r Middel van Roerende Goed

57 van 1993 bevestig dat ook ’n beroep op gevestigde praktyksgebru ik geensins die

onderliggende regswerklik heid plooi om in pas te kom met die regsverdraaiing wat

die gevestigde praktyksgebr uik onderlê het nie. Dieselfde skok is 30 jaar eerder in die

gevestigde praktyk ervaar met die appèl hofuitspraak in Lief NO v Dettmann (1964

2 SA 252 (A)) toe plotseling derduisende deelnemingsverbande wat ’n vermeend

“beproefde” beleggingskon struksie in d ie nansiële wêreld was, nietig was omdat

dit in stryd was met die gevestigde regsbeg insels soos in die uitspraak beslis is. Die

formulerings benut in me nige trustakte vi r ’n trust inter vivos is waa rskynlik nóg ’n

voorbeeld van dieselfde soort dwaling wat veronder stel dat omdat daar derduisende

indien nie miljoene nie trustaktes vir ’n trust inter vivos is wat ’n identiese aanhef

het, dit mos regsgeldig móét wees. (In hierdie bydrae word geen a andag bestee aan

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd