Theron and Another NNO v Loubser NO and Others

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: 2014 (3) SA 323 (SCA)

Theron and Another NNO v Loubser NO and Others
2014 (3) SA 323 (SCA)

2014 (3) SA p323

Citation	2014 (3) SA 323 (SCA)
Case No	161/2013; [2013] ZASCA 195
Court	Supreme Court of Appeal
Judge	Ponnan JA, Leach JA, Majiedt JA, Wallis JA and Petse JA
Heard	November 13, 2013
Judgment	December 2, 2013
Counsel	CHJ Maree for the appellants.; WP Coetzee for the respondents.

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde B

Trust — Trustee — Identity — Anyone with interest in trust has locus standi to approach court for declaration on identity of its trustees.

Appeal — To Supreme Court of Appeal — Issues — Separation — Parties seeking C separation must apply for direction to this effect — Such will only be granted in rare instances.

Headnote : Kopnota

Mr and Mrs Theron applied to a high court for declarations that they were the trustees of certain trusts and for related relief. The high court fully heard the D applications and dismissed them for want of locus standi. It expressed no view on the merits. The Therons then sought and received leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) which overturned the high court's decision. (Paragraphs [2] – [3] at 325G – 326J.)

It held that any person with an interest in a trust could approach a court for a declaration on the identity of its trustees. Here the Therons' assertions that E they were trustees had established such an interest. Ultimately it remitted the matters to the high court for adjudication. (Paragraphs [6] – [7] and [21] – [22] at 327I – 328E and 333F – 334A.)

The concurring judgment focused on the procedure adopted by the parties on appeal. On receiving leave they had agreed between themselves to limit the record before the SCA to what was necessary to decide the locus standi F question. The court held that no rule or practice entitled them to separate this issue from the merits. They ought, if they had thought it appropriate, to have applied for a direction to this effect, though such would only be granted in rare instances. It warned that the parties' approach was not to be followed in future. (Paragraphs [25] and [27] – [28] at 334F – H and 335C – 336C.) G

2014 (3) SA p324

Cases Considered

Annotations A

Case law

Academy of Learning (Pty) Ltd v Hancock and Others 2001 (1) SA 941 (C): referred to

Aling and Streak v Olivier 1949 (1) SA 215 (T): referred to B

Aspek Pipe Co (Pty) Ltd and Another v Mauerberger and Others 1968 (1) SA 517 (C): referred to

Bader and Another v Weston and Another 1967 (1) SA 134 (C): referred to

Braun v Blann and Botha NNO and Another 1984 (2) SA 850 (A): referred to

Brian Kahn Inc v Samsudin 2012 (3) SA 310 (GSJ): referred to C

Caroluskraal Farms (Edms) Bpk v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suider-Afrika Bpk; Red Head Boer Goat (Edms) Bpk v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suider-Afrika Bpk; Sleutelfontein (Edms) Bpk v Eerste Nasionale Bank van Suider-Afrika Bpk 1994 (3) SA 407 (A): referred to

Commissioner for Inland Revenue v Friedman and Others NNO 1993 (1) SA 353 (A): referred to

Democratic Alliance and Others v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others 2012 (3) SA 486 (SCA): referred to D

De Reuck v Director of Public Prosecutions, Witwatersrand Local Division, and Others 2002 (6) SA 370 (W): referred to

Fax Directories (Pty) Ltd v SA Fax Listings CC 1990 (2) SA 164 (D): referred to

Hart v Pinetown Drive-In Cinema (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 464 (D): referred to E

Kolbatschenko v King NO and Others 2001 (4) SA 336 (C): referred to

Lupacchini NO and Another v Minister of Safety and Security 2010 (6) SA 457 (SCA): referred to

Manong & Associates (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Public Works and Another 2010 (2) SA 167 (SCA): referred to F

Minister of Agriculture v Tongaat Group Ltd 1976 (2) SA 357 (D): referred to

Persadh and Another v General Motors South Africa (Pty) Ltd 2006 (1) SA 455 (SE) ([2006] 4 All SA 297): referred to

Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and Others v Tshabalala-Msimang and Another NNO; New Clicks South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Minister of Health and Another 2005 (3) SA 238 (SCA) (2005 (6) BCLR 576; [2005] 1 All SA 326): dictum in para [15] applied G

Reymond v Abdulnabi and Others 1985 (3) SA 348 (W): referred to

S v Malinde and Others 1990 (1) SA 57 (A): referred to

Taylor v Welkom Theatres (Pty) Ltd and Others 1954 (3) SA 339 (O): referred H to

Ter Beek v United Resources CC and Another 1997 (3) SA 315 (C): referred to

Theron NO v Loubser [2012] ZAWCHC 143: reversed on appeal

Truter v Degenaar 1990 (1) SA 206 (T): referred to

Union Finance Holdings Ltd v IS Mirk Office Machines II (Pty) Ltd and Another I 2001 (4) SA 842 (W): referred to

Zweni v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (1) SA 523 (A): dictum at 532 – 533 applied.

Case Information

CHJ Maree for the appellants.

WP Coetzee for the respondents. J

2014 (3) SA p325

An appeal from the Western Cape High Court, Cape Town (Cloete A AJ). [*] The order is in para [22].

Order

(a)

The appeal is upheld with costs.

(b)

The order of the high court dismissing the application under case B No 12238/06 is set aside.

(c)

The order of the high court dismissing the application under case No 13978/11 is set aside.

(d)

Both matters are remitted to the high court.

Judgment

Ponnan JA: C

[1]

'Two households both alike in dignity,

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean',

is William Shakespeare's introduction to the feuding families in Romeo D and Juliet (Prologue 1 – 4). Substitute the Cape for fair Verona and the Therons and Loubsers for the Montagues and Capulets and that, I daresay, would perhaps be an equally apt introduction in this matter. The Therons — Gideon and Antoinette (the first and second appellants) — and the Loubsers — Dr Andrew and Anna (the first and second E respondents) — are the protagonists in a long-standing family feud (Gideon and Anna are siblings) which has culminated in extensive litigation between them. Dr Andrew Loubser explains:

'Currently there are at least 12 to 15 matters pending in the Magistrate's court and at least 2 applications and 5 actions pending in the High F Court. A report is also awaited from the presiding officer in an enquiry in terms of the Companies Act relating to the liquidation of the company in which the parties were all involved previously and from which various allegations of fraud, misappropriation of funds, mismanagement, theft, dishonesty, etc emanate.'

[2] The present is an appeal with the leave of this court from the Western G Cape High Court. Three separate applications served before the high court. The first application related to the Jacknet Trust. In it the Therons sought an order:

'1.

Dat die besluit geneem deur Eerste en Tweede Respondente H [Andrew and Anna Loubser NNO] tydens ongeveer middel 2005 om Eerste en Tweede Applikante [Gideon and Antoinette Theron NNO] te onthef van hul pligte as trustees van die Jacknet Trust (IT 951/95) nietig en kragteloos is.

2.

Dat verklaar word dat Eerste Applikant, Tweede Applikant, Eerste Respondent en Tweede Respondent die huidige trustees is van die gemelde Trust. I

3.

Dat die Meester (Derde Respondent) versoek en gelas word om 'n Meestersertifikaat uit te reik wat die huidige trustees aandui soos vermeld in paragraaf 2 hierbo.'

2014 (3) SA p326

Ponnan JA

A In the second application under case No 12238/06, which related to the Namakwari Trust (the Namakwari application), the Therons sought an order:

'1.

Dat die (gepoogde) aanstelling van Eerste Respondent [Andrew Loubser] as trustee van die Namakwari Trust (IT 4018/95) op B 20 Junie 2006 ongeldig en dus nietig is.

2.

Dat die besluit geneem op 'n vergadering van die trustees van die Namakwari Trust op 23 Augustus 2006, in terme waarvan Tweede Respondent [Anna Loubser] onthef is van haar amp as trustee van die gemelde trust, geldig is.

3.

C Dat verklaar word dat Eerste en Tweede Applikante die huidige trustees is van die gemelde Trust.

4.

Dat die Meester (Derde Respondent) versoek en gelas word om 'n Meestersertifikaat uit te reik wat die huidige trustees aandui soos vermeld in paragraaf 3 hierbo.'

D And, in the third application, bearing case No 13978/11 (which came to be described by the parties as the 2011 application), the Therons sought, inter alia, the following relief:

'2.

That it be declared that First and Second Respondents, having committed deeds of insolvency, have been (automatically) E discharged as trustees of each of the following trusts as provided for in such trusts' respective trust deeds:

2.1

Traka 5 Trust;

2.2

Traka 6 Trust;

2.3

Traka 7 Trust;

2.4

Traka 8 Trusts;

2.5

F Traka 9 Trust;

2.6

Traka 10 Trust;

2.7

The Jacknet Trust;

2.8

The Namakwari Trust;

. . . .'

G [3] All three applications came before Cloete AJ, who after hearing argument over the course of several days, granted the relief sought in the first application and dismissed the other two. In dismissing the Namakwari and 2011 applications the high court held that the Therons lacked 'the necessary locus standi to have brought those applications'. It H reasoned (paras 30 – 32):

'It must surely be that before exercising any power conferred on them by the trust instrument the trustees must resolve to exercise that power; and that in order to effect a resolution they must follow the procedure set out in clauses 4.5.1 to 4.5.3. To find otherwise would mean that I each trustee would be able to act independently of the others in relation to the powers set out in the trust instrument. This would offend not only against the trust instrument itself but also the common-law.

With regard to legal proceedings the common-law position is that...