Case Law[2023] ZAGPPHC 1974South Africa
Maboa and Another v Sandford Community Trust and Others (118576/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1974 (29 November 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)
29 November 2023
Headnotes
in accordance with clause 13 of the Trust Deed.
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1974
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Maboa and Another v Sandford Community Trust and Others (118576/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1974 (29 November 2023)
Maboa and Another v Sandford Community Trust and Others (118576/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1974 (29 November 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2023_1974.html
sino date 29 November 2023
# IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
# (GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
(GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA)
## CASE NO: 118576/2023
CASE NO: 118576/2023
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED
In the matter between:
MABOA,
HENNRY
JOLA
First Applicant
BENEFICARIES
OF
SANDFORD
COMMUNITY
TRUST
Second
Applicant
and
SANDFORD
COMMUNITY
TRUST
First Respondent
ANY
INTERESTED
PERSON
Second Respondent
MASTER
OF THE HIGH
COURT
Third Respondent
# JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
NGALWANA AJ
[1]
This is an application, in essence, for an
order directing the Master of the High Court to appoint five named
persons as trustees
of the Sandford Community Trust (“
the
trust”
) in accordance with a
trustees’ resolution of 7 October 2023 and issue letter of
authority to them within five days of the
order being granted. The
named persons are:
(a)
Henry
Jola
Maboa,
who
is
the
deponent
to
the
affidavit
supporting
this
application and describes himself as one of the founder trustees of
the trust.;
(b)
McDonald Cyril Mogane;
(c)
Patrick Shane Mogane; and
(d)
Boitumelo Mawela.
[2]
The application is brought on an urgent
basis essentially on the ground that the current trustees are
“
wreaking havoc at the Trust
Property”
and that this interim
structure of trustees was dissolved by an order of court dated 28
October 2022.
[3]
That order, in material terms, declared the
election of the current trustees unlawful; directed that the
applicants in that case
(Maboa and trust beneficiaries) must select
persons who are to assume the office of trustees and convene an
annual general meeting
for the election of new and/or additional
trustees within 6 months of the order; directing that notice of the
annual general meeting
must be advertised to all beneficiaries in a
national newspaper within 2 months of the order; directing that the
elections must
be held in accordance with clause 13 of the Trust
Deed.
[4]
Election was held and new trustees elected.
But when attempts were made to enforce the order, the Master baulked
following objection
by the current trustees in November 2022.
[5]
Counsel for the applicants made a valiant
effort to press their clients’ case. I have no difficulty
accepting that there appears
to be much that needs probing in the
affairs of the trust. The factual allegations made in the replying
affidavit are in my view
enough to trigger a closer inquiry into the
affairs of the trust. But a case must be made out in the founding
papers. I am not
persuaded that a case for urgency has been made out
in the applicants’ founding affidavit. An allegation, without
more, in
the founding papers that the trustees are “
wreaking
havoc at the Trust Property”
is
not enough to found urgency.
[6]
Objection by the current trustees to the
appointment of new trustees pursuant to the order of 28 October 2022
is said to have been
raised with the Master in November 2022. There
is no sufficient explanation for the delay in launching these
proceedings, which
were launched only an entire year later.
[7]
One of the bases advanced for urgency is
that the current trustees are failing to account to the beneficiaries
for the finances
of the trust. An example is what happened to R10.3
million of the trust funds. But this was an event that occurred in
2012 and
cannot found a case for urgency in 2023.
[8]
I am not persuaded that the applicants
cannot obtain substantial relief in due course.
[9]
Lack of urgency is not the only difficulty
facing the applicants. Questions have been raised about non-joinder
of all the trustees
and verified beneficiaries, the authority and
locus standi
of
the first applicant to bring this application on behalf of the
beneficiaries, and the proper service of the papers in this
application
on the trustees. To these questions, no satisfactory
answer has been provided. Nevertheless, it is not necessary to deal
with these
questions as I have already found that the applicants’
case founders at the urgency hurdle.
[10]
The first respondent wants costs on a
punitive scale against the first applicant and Mawela. While there is
no reason why costs
should not follow the cause, I am not inclined to
grant costs on a punitive scale. I could detect no bad faith, abuse
of court
process, vexation or dishonesty on the part of the
applicants.
[11]
There is no reason why the trust should
bear the costs of this application. The first applicant appears to be
driver behind it.
There is no indication that he has the backing of
the current trustees. No facts have been put forward to mulct Mawela
in costs
too.
Order
In
the result, I make the following order:
1.
The application is struck off the roll for
lack of urgency.
2.
The
first
applicant
is
to
pay
the
costs
of
this
application
on
a
party
and
party
scale.
# V NGALWANA
V NGALWANA
# ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION OF
THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Delivered: This judgement
was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is
handed down electronically by circulation
to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file
of this matter on CaseLines. The
date for hand-down is deemed to be
29 November 2023.
Date of hearing: 28
November 2023
Date of judgment: 29
November 2023
#
# Appearances:
Appearances:
Attorneys
for the Applicants:
KN
Maleka Attorneys Inc
Counsel
for the Applicants:
M
Rasesemola (068 141 5553)
M de
Jager (071 361 8066)
Attorneys
for First Respondent:
MacRobert
Inc
Counsel
for First Respondent:
Z
Schoeman (072 123 2614)
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Mabaso and Another v Nedbank Limited (010362/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 99 (7 February 2024)
[2024] ZAGPPHC 99High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mabena and Another v S (A297/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 409 (23 April 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 409High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mabuli and Another v South African Legal Practise Council (030312/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 172 (25 February 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 172High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
Mokgata and Others v Minister of the Department of Defence and Military Veterans and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 207; 58708/2020 (13 March 2023)
[2023] ZAGPPHC 207High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar
M.G.M and Another v N.B and Others (2023/079353) [2025] ZAGPPHC 903 (21 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPPHC 903High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Pretoria)99% similar