In a recent judgment by the Free State Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa it was decided that a trustee who resigns is only relieved from his duties when his name is removed from the letter of authority by the Master of the High Court. This judgment has caused many questions to be raised regarding the implications of the resignation by a trustee. This judgment and the current legal position of the resigning trustee are investigated in this dissertation. The legal position of the resigning trustee seems to be uncertain, and the mentioned judgment should not be unreservedly accepted as correct. The role and responsibility of the Master of the High Court in this process is considered, as well as the legal position of the resigning trustee, the remaining trustees and third parties contracting with the trust. Certain conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made regarding this aspect of South African trust law. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

In a recent judgment by the Free State Provincial Division of the High Court of South Africa it was decided that a trustee who resigns is only relieved from his duties when his name is removed from the letter of authority by the Master of the High Court. This judgment has caused many questions to be raised regarding the implications of the resignation by a trustee. This judgment and the current legal position of the resigning trustee are investigated in this dissertation. The legal position of the resigning trustee seems to be uncertain, and the mentioned judgment should not be unreservedly accepted as correct. The role and responsibility of the Master of the High Court in this process is considered, as well as the legal position of the resigning trustee, the remaining trustees and third parties contracting with the trust. Certain conclusions are drawn and recommendations are made regarding this aspect of South African trust law. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2009.

OPSOMMING Alhoewel die trustfiguur reeds sedert die 19e Eeu in Suid-Afrika erken word, en as `n suiwer trustfiguur tipeer kan word, is die hantering van die regte van sekere trustbegunstigdes steeds in onsekerheid gehul. Die hoofrede hiervoor is die oorbeklemtoning van die wyse waarop trusts tot stand kom en die onderbeklemtoning van die unieke fidusiêre aard van die trust na oprigting daarvan. In Engeland, Skotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana en Quebec, waar die suiwer trustfiguur ook aanwending vind, bestaan, in teenstelling met die oënskynlike regsposisie in Suid-Afrika, die moontlikheid van trustbegunstigdes sonder regte glad nie. In hierdie jurisdiksies speel die oprigtingsinstrument `n ondergeskikte rol en ontstaan die regte van trustbegunstigdes ex lege uit hoofde van die trustfiguur as `n vertrouensverhouding sui generis. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg die fidusiêre aard van die verhouding tussen trustee en trustbegunstigde erken, word die aard en omvang van die regte wat hieruit voort behoort te vloei nog nie voldoende deur die howe erken nie. Vertrouensverhoudinge waaruit regte en verpligtinge ex lege voortspruit, is bekend aan die gemenereg en word steeds hedendaags aangetref in verskeie ander vakdissiplines binne die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, waaronder die maatskappyereg. Die suiwer trustfiguur stel verder noodwendig `n vertrouensverhouding daar wat juis daarop gemik is om die regte van trustbegunstigdes te beskerm. Die standpunt word dus ingeneem dat alle trustbegunstigdes in Suid-Afrika derhalwe oor ex lege regte beskik. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat trustbegunstigdes se regte nie uitsluitlik voortvloei uit hoofde van die tersaaklike oprigtingshandeling nie, maar dat unieke regte ontstaan as gevolg van die onderliggende fidusiêre verhouding wat tot stand kom wanneer, maar ongeag hoe, die trust opgerig word. Kortom: Die fidusiêre verhouding behoort erken te word as eie, onafhanklike bron van trustbegunstigdes se moontlike regte teen die trustee in die geval van trustbreuk. Nie net is dit `n logiese stap in die ontwikkeling van die gemenereg nie, maar sal dit ook die beskerming van trustbegunstigdes in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg op dieselfde voet plaas as trustbegunstigdes in die ander jurisdiksies wat nagevors is. So 'n stap sal bydra tot regsekerheid en nie tot `n wesentlike omwenteling in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg en -administrasie lei nie. SYNOPSIS Although the trust figure has been recognised in South Africa since the 19th century and can be characterised as a proper trust, uncertainty still prevails regarding the scope and acknowledgement of the rights of some trust beneficiaries. The main reason for this is the over-emphasis of the manner in which trusts are created, and the under-emphasis of the unique fiduciary nature of the trust once it has been established. In England, Scotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana and Quebec where the proper trust figure is also applied, there is no possibility, contrary to the apparent legal position in South Africa, of trust beneficiaries without rights. In these jurisdictions the instrument used to create a trust plays a subordinate role and the rights of trust beneficiaries originate ex lege by virtue of the trust itself as a relationship of trust sui generis. Although South African trust law acknowledges the fiduciary nature of the relationship between trustee and trust beneficiary, the nature and extent of the rights that should emanate from this relationship are not adequately acknowledged by the courts. / Jurisprudence / L.L.D.

OPSOMMING Alhoewel die trustfiguur reeds sedert die 19e Eeu in Suid-Afrika erken word, en as `n suiwer trustfiguur tipeer kan word, is die hantering van die regte van sekere trustbegunstigdes steeds in onsekerheid gehul. Die hoofrede hiervoor is die oorbeklemtoning van die wyse waarop trusts tot stand kom en die onderbeklemtoning van die unieke fidusiêre aard van die trust na oprigting daarvan. In Engeland, Skotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana en Quebec, waar die suiwer trustfiguur ook aanwending vind, bestaan, in teenstelling met die oënskynlike regsposisie in Suid-Afrika, die moontlikheid van trustbegunstigdes sonder regte glad nie. In hierdie jurisdiksies speel die oprigtingsinstrument `n ondergeskikte rol en ontstaan die regte van trustbegunstigdes ex lege uit hoofde van die trustfiguur as `n vertrouensverhouding sui generis. Alhoewel die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg die fidusiêre aard van die verhouding tussen trustee en trustbegunstigde erken, word die aard en omvang van die regte wat hieruit voort behoort te vloei nog nie voldoende deur die howe erken nie. Vertrouensverhoudinge waaruit regte en verpligtinge ex lege voortspruit, is bekend aan die gemenereg en word steeds hedendaags aangetref in verskeie ander vakdissiplines binne die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, waaronder die maatskappyereg. Die suiwer trustfiguur stel verder noodwendig `n vertrouensverhouding daar wat juis daarop gemik is om die regte van trustbegunstigdes te beskerm. Die standpunt word dus ingeneem dat alle trustbegunstigdes in Suid-Afrika derhalwe oor ex lege regte beskik. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat trustbegunstigdes se regte nie uitsluitlik voortvloei uit hoofde van die tersaaklike oprigtingshandeling nie, maar dat unieke regte ontstaan as gevolg van die onderliggende fidusiêre verhouding wat tot stand kom wanneer, maar ongeag hoe, die trust opgerig word. Kortom: Die fidusiêre verhouding behoort erken te word as eie, onafhanklike bron van trustbegunstigdes se moontlike regte teen die trustee in die geval van trustbreuk. Nie net is dit `n logiese stap in die ontwikkeling van die gemenereg nie, maar sal dit ook die beskerming van trustbegunstigdes in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg op dieselfde voet plaas as trustbegunstigdes in die ander jurisdiksies wat nagevors is. So 'n stap sal bydra tot regsekerheid en nie tot `n wesentlike omwenteling in die Suid-Afrikaanse trustreg en -administrasie lei nie. SYNOPSIS Although the trust figure has been recognised in South Africa since the 19th century and can be characterised as a proper trust, uncertainty still prevails regarding the scope and acknowledgement of the rights of some trust beneficiaries. The main reason for this is the over-emphasis of the manner in which trusts are created, and the under-emphasis of the unique fiduciary nature of the trust once it has been established. In England, Scotland, Sri Lanka, Louisiana and Quebec where the proper trust figure is also applied, there is no possibility, contrary to the apparent legal position in South Africa, of trust beneficiaries without rights. In these jurisdictions the instrument used to create a trust plays a subordinate role and the rights of trust beneficiaries originate ex lege by virtue of the trust itself as a relationship of trust sui generis. Although South African trust law acknowledges the fiduciary nature of the relationship between trustee and trust beneficiary, the nature and extent of the rights that should emanate from this relationship are not adequately acknowledged by the courts. / Jurisprudence / L.L.D.