Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 25 FEBRUARY 2025

The Requirement Of Joint And Unanimous Action By Trustees

ENS
Explore more from ENS

The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") in Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys v De Witt has reaffirmed that, unless the trust deed provides otherwise, trustees must act jointly for the trust to be bound by their acts.

South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENSafrica
ENSafrica
Author LinkedIn connections

The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal ("SCA") in Shepstone & Wylie Attorneys v De Witt has reaffirmed that, unless the trust deed provides otherwise, trustees must act jointly for the trust to be bound by their acts.

This ruling raises important questions for the administration of trusts, including:

  • What are the implications of this principle when a trust deed provides, as it often does, that in the event of disagreement among the trustees, the view of the majority will prevail?
  • Can a quorate majority of the trustees proceed to make decisions without the participation of the minority?
  • Must the dissenting minority trustees sign the resolution of the trustees, and the agreement that flows from that resolution, if the trust is to be bound in terms of the agreement?

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ghost Authorities: AI Hallucinations In The Courtroom

A South African Labour Court has stayed disciplinary proceedings after discovering that the chairperson's ruling relied on AI-generated, fictitious case citations. The judgment examines whether blind reliance on artificial intelligence tools constitutes a failure to apply independent legal reasoning, and what consequences flow from submitting fabricated authorities to courts and tribunals.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

End Of Concurrent Jurisdiction: Understanding The New Jurisdictional Boundaries In The Gauteng Division Of The High Court Of South Africa

A significant jurisdictional change has taken effect in South Africa's Gauteng Division of the High Court, ending the concurrent jurisdiction between Johannesburg and Pretoria seats that existed since 2018. Each seat now has defined geographical boundaries based on magisterial districts, requiring practitioners to carefully determine proper jurisdiction when instituting proceedings.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

Rescission Refused: Negligence Is Not Good Cause Under Rule 42(1)(a) Or The Common Law

The Supreme Court of Appeal examines whether a pension fund can successfully rescind a default judgment when its absence from proceedings resulted from internal administrative failures. The case explores the boundaries between procedural error and voluntary default, testing whether gross negligence in responding to legal process can be excused by the strength of a potential defence.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

No Easy Escape From Gauteng’s Mandatory Mediation Regime

A recent Gauteng High Court judgment confirms that mandatory court-annexed mediation cannot be avoided simply because parties are hostile toward each other or believe the process will be futile. The court ordered an uncooperative defendant to participate in mediation, establishing that only exceptional circumstances will excuse parties from the process introduced by the Directive and Protocol.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr