SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case 2026-055761
In the matter between:
N[… ] B[… ] Z[… ]
First Applicant
SAMKELISIWE FIONA MASHININI Second Applicant
And
T[… ] S[… ] Z[… ]
First Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS J
Introduction
[1] In this urgent application, the first and second applicants, the children of the
late Mr M[ …] S[…] Z[…] , are seeking a final interdict and the removal of the first
respondent as executrix, with an order to be appointed in her place, together with
other relief. The first respondent was duly appointed by the Master and has letters of
executorship.
[2] The applicants submit that the respondent is not administering the estate in
the best interests of all beneficiaries and contend that she reported the estate and
(1) REPORTABLE: Yes☐/ No ☒
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: Yes☐ / No ☒
(3) REVISED: Yes ☒ / No ☐
Date: 28 March 2026
2
secured her appointment without properly involving the other beneficiaries, by
misrepresenting herself as the deceased's only child. She also failed to open an
estate banking account and has been collecting rental income from estate properties
into her personal accounts . They allege that she has threatened to cut off utilities
and to “disinherit” the applicants, and that she is neglecting the estate properties. On
this basis, they argue the matter is urgent and that her continued tenure as executrix
is untenable.
[3] The first respondent disputes these allegations. She maintains that she was
properly appointed by the Master, that there have already been meetings under the
supervision of the Master to address the position of the heirs, and that the Master is
actively seized with issues in the estate. She denies misappropriating estate rentals,
contends that any rentals received were in the course of her duties as executrix, and
points out that she will ultimately have to account in a liquidation and distribution
account. She raises a point in limine that the matter is not urgent, contending that the
applicants have not shown that they will not obtain substantial redress in due course
through the ordinary processes of the Master’s office.
[4] It is common cause that the first respondent holds valid letters of executorship
issued by the Master and that there is, at least to some extent, an ongoing process
at the Master’s office. The applicants sent a complaint to the Master in January, for
which no substantive written reply has yet been received. There were at least two
meetings convened with or through the Master, one of which the first applicant left
prematurely. The last recorded engagement with the Master appears to have been
early this year, with no clear indication of what, if any, remedial steps the Master has
taken since.
[5] Removal of an executor is a drastic measure.
1 Section 54(1) of the
Administration of Estates Act 2 empowers the Master or the court to remove an
Administration of Estates Act 2 empowers the Master or the court to remove an
executor in specified circumstances, but the authorities emphasise that the remedy
is not punitive and is reserved for cases where the continued holding of office is
1 Börner v Brand [2025] 1 All SA 102 (WCC) para 109.
2 66 of 1965.
3
clearly incompatible with the proper administration of the estate and the protection of
beneficiaries’ interests. The court must be satisfied, on cogent evidence, that it is
undesirable that the executor should remain in office.
[6] There is a stark dispute over whether the first respondent has been
misappropriating the rental or merely receiving it in the course of her duties as
executrix, and over the inferences to be drawn from her use of personal banking
arrangements and the absence of a separate estate account. What is lacking on the
papers is a full, coherent accounting trail that demonstrates what rental was received
when, into which accounts it flowed, and how it was applied, so that the actual extent
of any financial prejudice to the estate cannot yet be determined, and not in the
urgent court.
[7] That said, even on her own version, there is no dedicated estate bank
account, rental is being channelled through her personal banking arrangements, and
she has not provided a coherent, documented account of the estate’s income and
expenditure. This falls short of what is expected of an executor and justifies a firm
conclusion that she has, at the very least, administered the estate irresponsibly to
date. Börner v Brand
3 stated
“It is untenable for an executor who sacrifices his fiduciary functions, which requires
the exercise of utmost good faith, to pursue a line dictated in favour of his own
interests. A party occupying a fiduciary position must not engage in a transaction by
which he will personally acquire an interest adverse to his duty. Where a person
stands to another in a position of confidence involving a duty to protect the interests
of that other, he is not allowed to make a secret profit at the other’s expense or place
himself in a position where his interests conflict with his duty . The latter principle
underlies an extensive field of legal relationships, eg, a guardian to his ward, an
underlies an extensive field of legal relationships, eg, a guardian to his ward, an
attorney to his client, and an agent to his principal. If a trustee is a beneficiary and
acts in such a way as to benefit himself at the expense of other beneficiaries, his acts
will be narrowly scrutinised. Executors and administrators will not be permitted to
derive a personal benefit from how they transact the business or manage the estate’s
assets.”
3 [2025] 1 All SA 102 (WCC) para 114.
4
[8] In the face of disputes and unattended meetings , the drastic step of removal
on an urgent basis , and the substitution of one or both applicants as executors ,
remains inappropriate on this record and in this instance. The proper course is to
place the administration under tighter interim controls and to require the Master, who
is institutionally charged with supervising executors, to investigate the complaints
and to decide, in a reasoned written decision, whether the first respondent should
remain in office.
[9] That does not mean the status quo should simply be left to continue
unchanged. The allegations raised are serious. If it is true that rental income is not
being kept in a separate estate account, that beneficiaries have been threatened
rather than engaged, and that there is no transparent accounting to the Master and
the beneficiaries, then the interests of the estate and all heirs are clearly at risk. At
the same time, the statutory scheme places the Master at the centre of supervising
executors. This is not the appropriate forum to replace the Master’s functions, to
review the Master’s appointment of the first respondent, or to implement a final
change in control over the estate. What is needed is a holding arrangement: limited
protective measures to stabilise the administration, and a clear instruction to the
Master to address the complaints in writing within specified time frames.
[10] As to urgency, the complaint is that rental income is being collected and
applied now, and that properties may be neglected, without adequate transparency
or oversight. If the applicants are correct, ongoing harm may be difficult to reverse ex
post facto. Even if the evidence of misappropriation is not yet sufficiently clear to
justify removal, the risk inherent in the continued, unregulated receipt and application
of estate income justifies limited, urgent intervention to ensure that rentals are ring-
of estate income justifies limited, urgent intervention to ensure that rentals are ring-
fenced and that the Master’s processes are not left to drift indefinitely. I am
accordingly satisfied that the matter warrants being dealt with as urgent to craft
interim protective relief.
[11] Balancing the seriousness of the allegations, the disputed factual matrix, the
drastic nature of the relief sought, and the important institutional role of the Master,
the just course is to decline, at this stage, to remove the first respondent or to
5
appoint any of the applicants as executor, and rather to grant interim, regulatory
relief aimed at ensuring that estate income is properly ring fenced and accounted for,
and to require the Master to investigate and to communicate their position in writing
within a fixed period. This will not preclude any party from approaching the Master
with further representations, or from seeking further relief in this court once the
Master has had a proper opportunity to exercise the statutory functions entrusted to
that office.
[12] In relation to costs, the applicants have secured significant urgent relief
through interdictory and regulatory orders aimed at safeguarding the estate and
initiating a proper investigation by the Master. These orders stem from the first
respondent’s irresponsible administrative decisions, including her use of personal
banking arrangements for estate rentals and her failure to provide a proper written
account. Given these circumstances, it is fair that she bears the costs of this urgent
application.
Order
[13] As a result, the following order is made:
1. The matter is enrolled as urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).
2. Pending a written decision by the Master of the High Court:
a. The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from
receiving any rental income or other income derived from
immovable properties forming part of the estate of the late
M[…] S[…] Z[…] into any bank account held in her personal
name.
b. The first respondent is interdicted and restrained from
selling, encumbering or otherwise disposing of any
immovable property forming part of the estate, and from
making any distribution of estate funds or assets to herself or
to any beneficiary, save with the prior written consent of all
adult beneficiaries or with the written approval of the Master
of the High Court.
6
3. All rental payments and other income arising from immovable
properties forming part of the estate shall, with effect from the
date of this order, be paid into:
a. a banking account opened in the name of “Estate Late M [… ]
S[…] Z[…] ,” the details of which shall be notified in writing to
the Master and to the applicants’ attorneys within 10 (ten)
days of this order; or, failing the prompt opening of such an
account, an attorneys’ trust account designated in writing by
the parties’ legal representatives for the benefit of the estate,
and such funds shall not be withdrawn or applied except for
necessary expenses of administering and preserving the
estate.
4. The first respondent is directed, within 20 (twenty) court days of
this order:
a. to deliver to the Master, with a copy to the applicants’
attorneys, a written account, on affidavit, of all rental and
other income received in respect of estate properties from
the date of her appointment as executrix to the date of this
order;
b. to annex to such affidavit copies of bank statements for any
account into which such income has been paid, together with
a schedule listing all payments made from such income and
the purposes of such payments.
5. The Master of the High Court (second respondent) is directed:
a. to consider the applicants’ complaints, the first respondent’s
response, and the accounting furnished in terms of
paragraph 4;
b. to investigate, in terms of the Administration of Estates Act
66 of 1965 and any other applicable law, the administration
of the estate of the late M [… ] S[…] Z[…] , including the
handling of rental income and other estate assets; and
c. within 60 (sixty) days of receipt of the accounting referred to
in paragraph 4, to communicate to the parties in writing the
outcome of such investigation and any decision taken
7
concerning the continued appointment or possible removal of
the first respondent, furnishing brief written reasons.
6. Any party is granted leave, on the same papers duly amplified,
to approach this court for further relief, including but not limited
to relief arising from or consequent upon the Master’s written
decision contemplated in paragraph 5.
7. The respondent is to pay the costs of this application, on scale
B.
____________________________
WJ du Plessis
Judge of the High Court, Gauteng Division,
Johannesburg
Date of hearing:
26 March 2026
Date of judgment:
28 March 2026
For the applicant:
TL Rachidi instructed by AS Raseroka
Attorneys
For the respondent:
BZH Madonsela of BZH Madonsela
Attorneys