SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
Not reportable
Case no: 2328/2025
In the matter between:
LIMAKATSO RAHANTLANE APPLICANT
and
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT FIRST RESPONDENT
LEHLOHONOLO ARIEL MAILA SEDOND RESPONDENT
MAMOKETE MARIA RAHANTLANE THIRD RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Rahantlane v Master of the High Court and Others (2328/2025) [2025]
ZAFSHC 386 (3 December 2025)
Coram: Daffue J
Heard: 14 August 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’
representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is
deemed to be 16h00 on 3 December 2025.
Summary: Review – applicant sought the review and setting aside of the Master’s
decision to withdraw letters of authority issued to her in t erms of s 18(3) of the
Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 (the Act) – s 95 of the Act authorises the Chief
Master to review the Master’s decision – application dismissed.
2
ORDER
1 The application to review and set aside the Master of the High Court’s decision of
7 April 2025 to withdraw letters of authority issued in favour of the applicant in terms of
section 18(3) of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 is dismissed.
2 This order shall be forwarded to the Master of the High Court forthwith.
JUDGMENT
Daffue J
[1] Ngaka Phillip Rahantlane (the deceased) died interstate on 31 October 2022. On
23 June 2023 , under estate number 9706/2022, the Master of the High Court,
Bloemfontein (the Master) issued letters of authority in accordance with s 18(3) of the
Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 (the Act) to the applicant, Limakatso Florence
Rahantlane, identity number 9[...]. Ex facie the letters of authority , the deceased was
not survived by a spouse.
[2] The applicant in the unopposed application presented to me is an adult female
residing at Meqheleng, Ficksburg. She is the deceased’s biological daughter. Her
aforesaid mandate authorised her to take control of the assets of the deceased’s estate,
to pay the estate’s debts and to transfer the residue of the estate to the heir/heirs
entitled thereto by law. The value of the assets, to wit eight vehicles , amounted to
exactly R125 000. No other assets are mentioned in the letters of authority. More about
this later.
[3] The Master is cited as the first respondent. The Master withdrew the applicant’s
authority to act as estate representative as I shall discuss in some detail hereunder.
3
[4] Lehlohonolo Ariel Maila, a major male person, is cited as the second
respondent. He is the deceased’s son and refers to himself as Malia Lehlohonolo Ariel
as is evident from hi s letter of complaint , dated 13 February 2025 , served upon the
Master. The Master attached this letter of complaint to his letter of 3 March 2025 ,
addressed to the applicant and it forms part of the application papers. The second
respondent pointed out that the applicant had presented the Master with false
information to be issued with the letters of authority. According to him, the applicant is
his younger sister who claims the deceased’s whole estate without informing the Master
that she was not the deceased’s only child.
[5] Mamokete Maria Rahantlane, a major female person, is cited as third
respondent. She is the deceased’s biological sister. The third respondent is the
deceased’s sister. She caused her attorneys, Du Toit, Louw and Botha, to write to the
Ficksburg Taxi Association to make them aware of the Master’s withdrawal of the letters
of authority. It is not certain on what basis she intervened in the matter, bearing in mind
the provisions of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987. I shall return thereto in a
moment.
[6] On 16 May 2025 the applicant obtained urgent relief pertaining to Part A of the
notice of motion. In terms thereof the Master’s withdrawal letter was suspended pending
finalisation of the review application contained in Part B of the notice of motion. The
Master was also directed to reinstate the letters of authority as an interim measure. The
notice of motion and annexures were served on the second and third respondents on 12
and 13 May 2025 respectively, thereby giving them insufficient notice of the application.
I have reason to believe that they ha d no idea of the impact of the relief sought, bearing
in mind that neither Part A, nor Part B of the application was opposed.
[7] The applicant failed to play open cards with the Master when she applied to be
[7] The applicant failed to play open cards with the Master when she applied to be
appointed as estate representative. There is no reference in the letters of authority to
immovable property. The applicant indicate s in paragraph 27 of her founding affidavit
that two matters are pending in the Ficksburg Magistrate’s Court concerning the estate.
The one matter is an eviction application wherein she as applicant seeks the eviction
under application number 37 1/2024 in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from
and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 of a certain Mr Sefatsa from
4
immovable property belonging to the deceased’s estate.
[8] The value of this immovable property may be such that the Master would be
prevented from issuing letters o f authority under s 18(3) of the Act. This s ub-section
reads as follows:
‘(3) If the value of any estate does not exceed the amount determined by the Minister by notice
in the Gazette, the Master may dispense with the appointment of an executor and give
directions as to the manner in which any such estate shall be liquidated and distributed.’
At this moment the amount referred to in sub-section 3 is R250 000.1
[9] Part B of the notice of motion was set down for hearing on 14 August 2025 in the
unopposed motion court . Having perused the application papers and the Master’s
report, I directed the applicant’s attorney to present me with heads of argument to be
filed on 20 August 2025. I made it clear that I was prima facie not prepared to grant
relief, bearing in mind the applicant’s incorrect reliance on section 54 of the Act . No
heads of argument have been filed as directed . Unfortunately, and due to this failure ,
the matter escaped my attention which caused the late handing down of this judgment.
[10] It is apposite to record what led to the present application. On 3 March 2025 the
Master issued a letter to the applicant, advising her of the second respondent’s
complaint referred to above . She was provided 14 days to respond to the complaint
attached to the Master’s letter. A follow-up letter was sent to the applicant on 25 March
2025. N o response was received, whereupon the Master withdrew the letters of
authority on 7 April 2025. It is the applicant’s case that the first two letters were received
by her on 25 April 2025 and the third letter on 2 May 2025 respectively. Bearing in mind
the outcome of this judgment, I do not have to dwell on this aspect.
[11] Upon his death t he deceased was unmarried and therefore, no surviving spouse
[11] Upon his death t he deceased was unmarried and therefore, no surviving spouse
is involved. Section 1(1) of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987 reads as follows:
‘(1) If after the commencement of this Act a person (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') dies intestate, either wholly or in part, and-
(a) is survived by a spouse, but not by a descendant, such spouse shall inherit the intestate
estate;
1 Government Gazette 38238 of November 2014.
5
(b) is survived by a descendant, but not by a spouse, such descendant shall inherit the
intestate estate;
(c) . . .’
[12] The intestate succession among descendants is per stirpes and by
representation. D escendants mean children and further issue ad infinitum of the
deceased, ie grandchildren, great grandchildren and so on.2
[13] The applicant alleges in her founding affidavit that the Master’s decision should
be reviewed and set aside based on the provisions of s 54 of the Act. This section is
inapplicable. It applies to the removal of executors only and not Master’s
representatives appointed in terms of s 18(3) of that Act. 3 I repeat that it is also
apparent from s 18(3) that if the value of any estate does not exceed R250 000, the
Master may dispense with the appointment of an executor and give directions as to how
the estate should be liquidated and distributed.
[14] Notwithstanding the comments in the previous paragraph , I accept that the
applicant was entitled to be informed of the complaint and requested to provide reasons
before a decision was taken to withdraw the letters of authority . This does not support
the applicant in casu. Section 95 of the Act provides that the Chief Master may review
certain decisions taken by the Master . In turn, such decision by the Chief Master may
be appealed against or reviewed by the court upon motion at the instance of any person
aggrieved thereby.
[15] Section 95 reads as follows:
‘95 Review of Master's appointments, etc
(1) The Chief Master may review any appointment of an executor, curator or interim curator,
and every decision, ruling, order, direction or taxation made by the Master, after taking into
consideration representations from an executor, curator, interim curator, beneficiary or any other
person whom the Chief Master considers relevant, and the Chief Master may confirm, set aside
or vary the appointment, decision, ruling, order, direction or taxation, as the case may be.
or vary the appointment, decision, ruling, order, direction or taxation, as the case may be.
(2) Representations must be in writing and must include all relevant information pertaining
2 See ss 1(1)(b) read with s 1(4)(a) of the Intestate Succession Act 81 of 1987.
3 This is apparent from the definition of executor and letters of executorship read with ss 14, 15 and 18 of
the Administration of Estates Act.
6
to the matter, including-
(a) the estate number;
(b) name of the deceased or executor of the estate;
(c) name of the court in whose jurisdiction the matter falls; and
(d) a copy of the correspondence from the Master regarding his or her decision on the
matter.
(3) A decision of the Chief Master taken in terms of subsection (1) shall be subject to appeal
or review by the Court upon motion at the instance of any person aggrieved thereby, and the
Court may on any such appeal or review confirm, set aside or vary the appointment, decision,
ruling, order, direction or taxation, as the case may be.
(4) . . .’
[16] No submissions were made as to the authority of the court to intervene at this
stage of the proceedings . In my view, this is a matter that should be dealt with by the
Chief Master after considering the following:
a. details of the deceased’s descendants;
b. whether the estate should be finalised in terms of s 18(3);
c. whether this is not a suitable case, bearing in mind the assets of the estate and
in particular the failure to provide a full inventory of all assets, for the appointment of an
executor dative;
d. the failure of the applicant to obtain the written consent of all beneficiaries,
particularly her brother as an intestate heir, for her to be appointed in terms of s 18(3).
[17] The Master was served with the application papers on 12 May 2025 at 15h26. He
was unable to prepare and lodge his report in time. He did not have proper time to
consider the application, although he specifically referred to s 95 of the Act which I dealt
with herein. A death notice should have been filed when the estate was reported. That
will show whether the second respondent was mentioned as one of the deceased’s
children, or whether the applicant failed to present the true facts . This may be important
for the Master’s reconsideration of the matter. This court should not at this stage of the
proceedings review and set aside the Master’s decision.
proceedings review and set aside the Master’s decision.
[18] The interim relief obtained by the applicant applies only pending finalisation of
the review application, Part B of the notice of motion. Insofar as I intend to dismiss the
review application, the interim relief shall lapse automatically.
7
Order
[19] In the result, the following order is made:
1 The application to review and set aside the Master of the High Court’s decision of
7 April 2025 to withdraw letters of authority issued in favour of the applicant in terms of
section 18(3) of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 is dismissed.
2 This order shall be forwarded to the Master of the High Court forthwith.
_________________
J P DAFFUE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
8
Appearances
For the Applicant: Unknown
Instructed by: Mtaye Attorneys
c/o PJ Maselela Attorneys, Bloemfontein.
For the Respondents: No appearance.