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
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 115
|
|
Chabangu and Another v Taunyane N.O and Another (5510/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 115 (18 April 2019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1)
REPORTABLE:
YES
/NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
YES
/NO
(3)
REVISED.
Case No: 5510/2018
18/4/2019
In
the matter between:
MMASELLO
CHABANGU
First Applicant
ONNICA
MAMAKATE MPYE
Second Applicant
And
ISAAC
TAUNYANE N.O.
First
Respondent
THE
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT, PRETORIA
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
AVVAKOUMIDES, AJ
1.
This
is an application in terms of which the Applicants seek an order
interdicting the First Respondent from dealing further with
the
administration of the deceased estate of the late Jerry Nathaniel
Mpye, under Master's Ref No. 12942/2015, pending finalisation
of the
application.
2.
The
Applicants also seek the removal of the First Respondent as nominated
executor and ancillary relief which is not necessary to
mention at
this stage, given the decision which follows hereunder.
3.
The
First Applicant alleges to be the biological child of the deceased
and the Second Applicant, the former wife of the deceased
was
divorced from the deceased on 31 July 2002. In terms of the decree of
divorce the marriage was dissolved and it was ordered
that the joint
estate shall be divided. Insofar as the Second Applicant is concerned
she alleges that she remains the owner of
one indivisible share in an
immovable property which remains registered in her name and the name
of the deceased.
4.
The
First Applicant states that the First Respondent, in response to her
lodgement of her claim to be recognised as a beneficiary
in the
estate of the deceased, was verbally informed that her claims are
rejected. Counsel for the First Respondent confirmed in
his
submissions, that the First Respondent is not possessed of any
written correspondence or documents because the First Respondent's
appointment was made in terms of
Section 18(3)
of the
Administration
of Estates Act 6 of 1965
. I find it somewhat strange that even an
administrator in terms of the aforesaid
Section 18(3)
would not be
possessed of any document dealing with the administration of the
estate in which he has so been appointed. What strikes
me as peculiar
is the estimated value of the estate appearing from the inventory,
the total of which exceeds the threshold applicable
to
Section 18(3)
appointments at the time of the First Respondent's appointment.
5.
Counsel
for the First Respondent submitted that if the First and Second
Applicants felt aggrieved by them not being recognised as
beneficiaries in the estate of the deceased, they should institute
action against the deceased estate. To some extent this may
be
correct however the Second Respondent's claim does not arise from the
administration of the estate but rather by virtue of the
remaining
owner of one indivisible half share of the immovable property of the
former joint estate. Her claim in this application
cannot be
entertained.
6.
With
regard to the First Applicant's claim I must express my concern at
how the First Respondent has conducted himself. I have formed
the
impression that there is some animosity amongst the children of the
deceased and this may very well have led to the exclusion
of the
First Applicant as beneficiary.
7.
Given
the difficulties I have in deciding this matter on the papers before
me and the concerns I have about obvious animosity between
heirs, I
deem it fit to make the following order:
(a)
The First Respondent is hereby
interdicted from dealing with the administration of the deceased
estate of the late Jerry Nathaniel
Mpye, under Master's Ref: No.
12942/2015, in any manner whatsoever, pending a report by the Master
of the High Court and the final
resolution of this application.
(b)
The Master of the High Court is hereby
directed to cause an investigation into the reasons why the First
Applicant was excluded
as beneficiary in the deceased estate late
Jerry Nathaniel Mpye and to furnish a comprehensive report into such
an investigation
which report shall be filed under the above case
number and considered by the court in the hearing of this application
in due course.
(c)
The First Respondent and the Applicant
shall cooperate fully with all requests by the Master of the High
Court and submit all documentation
and all information necessary to
the Master for purposes of such investigation.
(d)
The application is postponed
sine
die.
(e)
Once the report of the Master of the
High Court has been procured and filed, the parties are hereby given
leave to supplement their
papers and to re-enrol the application for
final determination.
(f)
Costs of this application are reserved.
G.T.
AVVAKOUMIDES
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Representation
for Applicants:
Mr
V Mabe from Victor Mabe Inc Attorneys
Representation
for First Respondent:
Mr
KP Seabi from KP Seabi Attorneys
Representation
for Second Respondent:
No
Appearance