About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2022
>>
[2022] ZAGPPHC 686
|
|
Bouwer N.O and Another v Master of The High Court, Pretoria (2937/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 686 (7 September 2022)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 2937/21
REPORTABLE:
NO
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
REVISED:
YES
7
SEPTEMBER 2022
In
the matter between:-
WILLEM
FRANCOIS BOUWER NO.
(in
his capacity as appointed co-curator
bonis
of
JHJ
VAN DYK, reference:
NC751/2017
First
Applicant
ANALI
CHRISTELLE SASSON NO.
(in
her capacity as appointed co-curator
bonis
of
JHJ
VANDYK, reference: NC751/2017
Second Applicant
and
THE
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Respondent
JUDGMENT
SKOSANAAJ
[1]
This judgment relates to the application
for leave to appeal brought by the applicants. I have already
indicated to the parties
that I am inclined to grant the application.
My reasons are shortly the following:
[1.1]
As indicated in my main judgment, the matter involves fairly complex
legal issues as well as an important principle that affects
the whole
curatorship industry.
[1.2]
It was pointed out to me that there are several judgments in other
Divisions which have dealt with the interpretation of the
phrases
'income' and 'proceeds' in various contexts. As advanced by the
argument of Mr Oosthuizen, such interpretation may be in
conflict
with my reasoning in this judgment.
[1.3]
Regulations 7 & 8 of the Administration of Estates Regulations
(1972) provide for transfers from the capital account to
the income
and expenditure account. This complicates the interpretation of the
phrase 'income collected' on which, the applicants'
case rested. This
matter raises the very question as to when must such capital be
regarded as having been converted into income.
[2]
It is on the basis of the above that I
find that there is a possibility that another court would find
differently.
[3]
I am also convinced that there are
sufficient grounds to grant this appeal to the Supreme Court of
Appeal. As indicated above, there
are already varying interpretations
of the phrases that came under spotlight in this case. Second, as the
issue affects the whole
industry, it is important that a proper
interpretation be accorded by the Supreme Court of Appeal to avoid
further conflicting
judgments from Provincial Divisions.
4.
In the circumstances, I grant the
following order:
[1]
Leave to appeal is granted to the
Supreme Court of Appeal.
[2]
The costs of this application are costs
in the appeal.
T
SKOSANA
Acting
Judge of the High Court