Breytenbach, NO & Ker, NO v Rex & Others

• Judge: Dowling AJ
• Judgment Date: 14 August 1947
• Citation: 1947 (4) SA 220 (T)
• Hearing Date: 03 July 1947
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division

Dowling, A.J.:

This is an application to determine whether property bequeathed for a specific charitable purpose which has apparently failed, can or should be executed cy-près, or as nearly as possible in conformity with the original intention.

The applicants are the surviving executors under the joint will of two spouses, named Breytenbach, the survivor of whom died on the 19th September, 1946, after adiating under the will. One of the assets in the joint estate consists of two erven in Carolina, with a five - or six-roomed dwelling house thereon. The testators were also possessed of six other erven in Carolina and four farms in the Transvaal and Swaziland.

With regard to the first-mentioned asset the will provides:

'8. Die woonhuis met die twee erwe Nos. 382 en 383, Carolina, sal na die dood van die langslewende van ons testateure ingerig word vir 'n industriële of huisvlyt-instituut vir jong dogters. Al die boeke, skilderye, familie-portrette, familie-wapens en skryftafel mag nie uit die woning verwyder word nie en sal deel van die inrigting uitmaak. As geheel sal die inrigting onder 'n kuratorium sorteer, wat sal bestaan behalwe uit die bogenoemde eksekuteurs, die Hoofonderwyser, die predikant van die Nederduitse Hervormde of Gereformeerde Gemeente, Carolina, en die Voorsitster van die plaaslike Vroue Federasie.

'8 (a)

Dit is 'n opdrag aan die eksekuteurs om hierdie inrigting indien moontlik vir 'n tydperk van vyf jaar lank finansiële ondersteuning te verleen en dit sal bekend staan as die 'Jacob Breytenbach Tehuis'.'

Clause 14 of the will makes a residuary bequest to three named sons of the testator. One of these sons is Jacob Conrad Velde Breytenbach, who is also an executor and one of the petitioners in this matter. It does not appear from the petition or annexures whether there are or were other children or descendants.

By codicil dated 14th August, 1942, clause 8 (a) of the will is cancelled.

For various reasons, which it is not necessary to set out in detail, it appears to be impossible to carry out the provisions of clause 8. It is to be inferred from the testators' cancellation of clause 8 (a) that they contemplated one or all of the bodies or institutions mentioned in clause 8 would supply or raise funds for the equipment and maintenance of the proposed

Dowling AJ

'industriële of huisvlyt-instituut vir jong dogters'.

Investigation has disclosed that no such funds will be forthcoming from these bodies or institutions; also that the maintenance in statu quo of the lares and penates on the premises is not feasible.

The petition runs:

'14. Your petitioners have further sought to ascertain whether any prospects exist for the creation of such an institution by non-official or charitable funds, but likewise believe and respectfully submit that that also appears to be impossible. 15. Your petitioners accordingly convened on the 12th February, 1947, at Carolina, a meeting of the proposed appointees or curators mentioned in paragraph 8 of the will.'

This meeting was attended by the executor J. C v Breytenbach in person, and by representatives of the second petitioner. A resolution was passed at this meeting, but the executors were not parties to this resolution. They state in para. 19 of the petition:

'Your petitioners at the said meeting considered it in the premises to be their duty to leave, and did in fact leave the matter to the consideration and decision of the three appointees, the first respondents, and the resolutions, your petitioners respectfully submit, must be read in the light of that fact.'

The relevant portions of this resolution run as follows:

'(b) Die Kuratorium oordeel, met in agneming van alle aangeleenthede rakende die voorgestelde inrigting dat dit onder huidige omstandighede vir hulle ondoenlik is om die beheer oor die eiendom te aanvaar en in 'n inrigting volgens die eis van die testament om te skep. Hierdie oordeel baseer die Kuratorium hoofsaaklik op die oorweging dat geen geldelike vermoëns tans tot sy beskikking is nie. (c) Die Kuratorium oordeel voorts op voordrag van die Carolinase genomineerdes om op koste van die boedel aansoek te doen om 'n bevel van die hof tot wat vervat is in een van...