SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 143746/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES
DATE: 23/2/26
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
GROBLER: TANYA ELIZABETH Applicant
and
FILTER: HANS HEINDRICH N.O. 1st Respondent
GROBLER: PETRO N.O. 2nd Respondent
SYMINGTON: ALETTA ELIZABETH N.O. 3rd Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT: PRETORIA 4th Respondent
JUDGMENT
ALLY, AJ
[1] This is an opposed application for the removal of a trustee in terms of Section
21(1) of the Trust Property Control Act 1 , hereinafter referred to as 'the Act',
alternatively, in terms of the common law.
[2] The applicant was represented by Adv. D.D. Swart and the first respondent by
Adv. C. Richard.
[3] The rest of the respondents have chosen not to oppose the application and
the second and third respondents have been cited, for the reason that they are
trustees of the WJ GROBLER FAMILIE TRUST ( I[...]) which will be hereinafter
referred to as 'the Trust'. The fourth respondent, the Master of the High Court,
Pretoria, has been cited in terms of Section 3 of 'the Act'.
[4] 'The Trust'2 was created or established on 6 June 2011 by the deceased, WJ
Grobler, the second respondent and the first respondent.
[5] It is common cause that the founder of the Trust, WJ Grobler, passed away
on 30 September 2021 and the applicant was appointed as a trustee on 15
November 2021. It is further common cause that the fi rst respondent instituted an
action3, on 4 November 2022, against 'the Trust' for payment of an amount of R6 500
000-00 (six million five hundred thousand rand). The action is being defended by 'the
Trust'.
[6] It is also common cause that the applicant re quested the first respondent to
resign as trustee of 'the Trust' which the first respondent declined to do, hence this
application.
[7] It should be noted at the outset 'the Trust' contains a clause that stipulates
that a recent trustee cannot force a founding trustee to resign4.
1 Act 57 of 1988, as amended
2 Caselines: Section 001-31 - 001
3 Caselines: Section: 001-85
4 Clause 4.5.6@ Caselines: Section001-34
[8] The applicant sets out the grounds for the application for removal in
paragraph 11 of her founding affidavit which provides as follows:
8.1. "misconduct, alternatively
8.2. the conduct of the first respondent imperils the property or the
administration of the trust; alternatively
8.3. the relationship between the first respondent on the on e hand and the
remaining trustees on the other hand has broken down to the extent that they
no longer have any mutual respect and trust for each other."5
[9] The applicant alleges that the proceeds from the life policy of the deceased,
WJ Grobler, would be used to procure properties from the joint estate and take
ownership thereof and as she, her mother and sister are the only capital
beneficiaries of 'the Trust', the procurement of the properties from the joint estate by
'the Trust' would enable the trust beneficiaries to benefit from the rental of the
properties.
[10] The applicant alleges and it is common cause that on 3 June 2022 ABSA
Bank, required cert ain documentation to be signed by each of the trustees, in order
to comply with the Financial Intelligence Centre Act.
[11] The applicant, second respondent and the third respondent apparently signed
the ABSA Bank document on 2 June 2022 as alleged by the applicant. When it
comes to the first respondent, however, the document from ABSA bank shows that
the first respondent signed on 2 June 2022 or at least, ex facie the document, he
signed on 2 June 2022.
[12] However, even if one accepts that the first resp ondent signed the relevant
document on 2 June 2022, it does not mean that the document was sent to ABSA
bank on this date. This inference and the only inference that can be drawn, is that as
on 8 June 2022 an email from ABSA Bank reflected that 'the Trust' s' bank account
had been frozen. In my view, this means that the first respondent had not submitted
5 Caselines: Section: 001-11
the required documentation in time which resulted in ABSA bank freezing the
account of 'the Trust'.
[13] The question to be posed, however, is whether this conduct of the first
respondent amounts to 'misconduct' or any of the other grounds for removal
mentioned by the applicant in her founding affidavit. It is also important to note that
the applicant is bound by the grounds s he mentions in her founding affidavit. This is
trite law.
[14] It should be remembered that the bank requested the documentation to be
signed and by 8 June 2022 6 'the Trust' bank account had been frozen. Now, as
stated above, the only reasonable inference that can drawn from ABSA bank
freezing the bank account of 'the Trust' is that the first respondent had not submitted
the documentation. In my view, the fact that no payments could be made on behalf
of 'the Trust' and 'the Trust' having to rely on Assegaai Banke (Pty) Ltd is clearly
conduct which can be elevated to misconduct and imperils the administration of 'the
Trust' and on this ground alone entitles the applicant to request the Court to remove
the first respondent as trustee of 'the Trust'.
[15] Counsel for the applicant submitted that the institution of an action by the first
respondent against 'the Trust' imperils 'the Trust' property and thus on this ground as
well, the first respondent should be removed.
[16] I indicated to Counsel for the applican t, during the hearing, that I was unable
to find case law reflecting that the mere filing of an action by a trustee against a trust,
amounts to imperilling the property and administration of 'the Trust'. In my view, a
trustee is entitled to secure his or h er claim against a trust and this cannot
reasonably be equated to imperilling the property and administration of the trust.
[17] The Court was referred by Counsel for the applicant, to an unreported
judgment7 by my brother Davis J as authority that a conflict of interest may constitute
6 Caselines: Section: 001-74
6 Caselines: Section: 001-74
7 Harrop-Allin & Ano v Harrop-Allin & Others 2024 GPPHC
a ground for removal of a trustee. In this regard, the Court was referred to the
following statement by my brother Davis J and the case law referred to therein:
"A trustee may be removed even if his or her conduct was bona fide, since
neither ma la fides nor even misconduct are necessary requirements for
removal ...
... a trustee must avoid any conflict of interest between his duties and
obligations as a trustee and his (or her) personal interests. Failure to do so
might justify removal.”8
[18] I agree with the principles and statement set out above by my brother Davis J
but each case must be determined on its own facts. Davis J makes it clear that
certain conduct might amount to grounds for removal. In my view, the securing of a
claim against a trust by a trustee is not such a ground. Accordingly, it is my view that
the first respondent cannot be removed on the ground that he instituted a claim
against 'the Trust'. It was common cause during argument that this Court was not
required to engage with the merits of the case launched in the Western Cape
Division of the High Court and this Court agrees therewith.
[19] Finally, can it be stated on a conspectus of all the evidence that the conduct
of the first respondent imperilled the property and the administration of the Trust? In
my view, imperilling the trust property and imperilling the administration of the trust
must be seen as two separate and distinct grounds.
[20] The word 'imperil' is defined as9:
"bring or put into danger''.
[21] The refusal of the first respondent to submit the relevant documentation, on a
conspectus of all the evidence, to A BSA bank, in my view imperilled the
administration of 'the Trust' in that A BSA bank, in line with the Financial Intelligence
8 supra at paragraphs 36 and 38
9 The Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition
Centre Act, froze the bank account of 'the Trust' and 'the Trust' was not able to make
use of the monies in 'the Trust'. However, I would not go so far as finding that the
said conduct of the first respondent imperilled the property of 'the Trust' on the
available evidence before this Court.
[22] In conclusion therefore this Court finds that the applicant, for the reasons
stated above, has made out a case for the removal of the first respondent as a
trustee of 'the Trust' and that I am satisfied that such removal is in the interests of
'the Trust and its beneficiaries in accordance with Section 20(1) of 'the Act'.
[23] In respect of costs there is no reason why costs should not follow th e result
and neither Counsel argued otherwise.
[24] Accordingly, the following Order shall issue:
a). the Order marked "X" is made an order of Court.
ALLY, G
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
PRETORIA
Electronically submitted therefore unsigned
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 23 February 2026.
Date of hearing: 3 September 2025
Date of judgment: 23 February 2026
For the Applicant: Adv. D. Swart instructed by
JW Bates Incorporated
henriette@jwbotesinc.co.za
For the First Respondent: Adv. C. Richard instructed by
TC Botha
litigation@tcbothalaw.eo.za/lizerie@weavind.co.za
“X”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
[GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA]
CASE NUMBER: 2024 - 143746
In the matter between:
TANYA ELIZABETH GROBLER APPLICANT
and
HANS HEINRICH FILTER N.O. FIRST RESPONDENT
PETRO GROBLER N.O. SECOND RESPONDENT
ALETTA ELIZABETH SYMINGTON N.O. THIRD RESPONDENT
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT. PRETORIA FOURTH RESPONDENT
COURT ORDER
AFTER HAVING HEARD THE PARTJ.ES AND AFTER HAVING READ THE
DOCUMENTS FILED OF RECORD, THE FOLLOW IS MADE: AN ORDER OF THE
COURT:-
1. THAT the first respondent is removed as trustee of the WJ Grobler Familie
Trust (I[...]); and
2. THAT the first respondent pays the costs of the application on Scale B.
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
REGISTRAR
APPEARANCES:
For the applicant: DO SWART
Instructed by
HJ ROBBERTSE
For the first respondent. C RICHARD
Instructed by
TC BOTHA