Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorVan der Westhuizen, W. M.
dc.contributor.advisorVan Schalkwyk, J. H.
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Bradley Shaun
dc.date.accessioned2015-11-25T08:33:05Z
dc.date.available2015-11-25T08:33:05Z
dc.date.issued2006-11
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11660/1910
dc.description.abstractEnglish: An analysis of the historical development of the trust in South Africa indicates that the trust has formed a part of South African jurisprudence for almost two centuries and, as such, has become a vibrant, dynamic and highly versatile institution in both commercial and legal practice. Initial recognition of the trust was occasioned chiefly by piecemeal (and fragmented) pre-Union legislation and case law. After 1910 the existence of the trust was confirmed by the Appellate Division – at that time the highest court in South Africa – and uniform legislation become applicable throughout the four provinces of the newly-established Union. The 1913 Administration of Estates Act was the first post-Union Act to apply to the law of trusts. This Act however only applied to the testamentary trust, but other legislation (such as the Trust Moneys Protection Act of 1934) eventually followed which applied to both testamentary and inter vivos trusts. The promulgation of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 is, however, widely regarded as being the most important contribution by the Legislature to the South African law of trusts. Section 6(1) of the 1988 Act introduced the requirement of written authorization of all trustees before they could act in that capacity. However, despite the seemingly clear and unambiguous wording adopted by the Legislature, the Courts have not interpreted and applied the section in a uniform fashion, leading to great uncertainty especially as far as the effect of non-compliance with section 6(1) is concerned. This dissertation attempts, by way of the legal historical method of research, to analyse the reported cases dealing with section 6(1), to compare the development of the requirement of written authorization with analogous requirements posed by previous legislation, and, as a consequence, to determine the true purpose of and rationale behind the insertion of the section. In order to combat the current uncertain legal position, three possible solutions are suggested, namely common law mechanisms, legislative intervention, and the correct interpretation of section 6(1).en_ZA
dc.description.abstractAfrikaans: ‘n Analise van die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die trust in Suid-Afrika toon dat die trust al vir amper twee eeue deel van die Suid-Afrikaanse regswetenskap is en dat dit tot ‘n lewenskragtige, dinamiese en hoogs veelsydige regsfiguur in die handels- en regsverkeer ontwikkel het. Voor Uniewording is die trust hoofsaaklik deur middel van stuksgewyse (en gefragmenteerde) wetgewing en regspraak erken. Na 1910 is die bestaan van die trust deur die Appèlhof – destyds die hoogste hof in Suid-Afrika – bevestig en eenvormige wetgewing wat van toepassing op al vier provinsies van die nuut-gestigde Unie was, is gepromulgeer. Die Boedelwet van 1913 was die eerste Wet wat van toepassing op die trustreg was. Alhoewel die Boedelwet van 1913 slegs op die testamentêre trust van toepassing was, het latere wetgewing (soos die Trustgelde Beskermingswet van 1934) gevolg wat op beide die testamentêre- en inter vivos trust van toepassing was. Die daarstelling van die Wet op die Beheer oor Trustgoed 57 van 1988 word egter oor die algemeen as die belangrikste bydrae van die Wetgewer tot die Suid- Afrikaanse trustreg beskou. Artikel 6(1) van die 1988 Wet het ‘n nuwe vereiste, naamlik die skriftelike magtiging van trustees alvorens hulle in daardie hoedanigheid mag optree, ingestel. Alhoewel die bewoording van hierdie artikel oënskynlik duidelik en ondubbelsinnig voorkom, word hierdie artikel egter nie deur die Howe op ‘n eenvormige wyse uitgelê en toegepas nie. Hierdie stand van sake lei tot groot onsekerheid, veral met betrekking tot die nie-nakoming van artikel 6(1). Hierdie verhandeling poog, deur middel van regshistoriese navorsing, om die gerapporteerde hofsake wat met artikel 6(1) handel te ontleed, die ontwikkeling van die magtigingsvereiste met soortgelyke vereistes wat deur vorige wetgewing neergelê is, te vergelyk en as ‘n uitvloeisel hiervan, die ware doel en beweegredes agter die invoeging van hierdie artikel vas te stel. Om die huidige onsekerheid uit die weg te probeer ruim word drie moontlike oplossings, naamlik gemeenregtelike meganismes, die ingryping van die Wetgewer en die korrekte uitleg van artikel 6(1) voorgestel.af
dc.language.isoenen_ZA
dc.publisherUniversity of the Free Stateen_ZA
dc.subjectCommon lawen_ZA
dc.subjectCase lawen_ZA
dc.subjectAuthorization of trusteesen_ZA
dc.subjectStatutory interpretationen_ZA
dc.subjectRatificationen_ZA
dc.subjectSecurityen_ZA
dc.subjectLiteralist-cum-intentionalismen_ZA
dc.subjectPurposivismen_ZA
dc.subjectPre-formation (or pre-incorporation) contractsen_ZA
dc.subjectOral trusten_ZA
dc.subjectFideicommissumen_ZA
dc.subjectStipulatio alterien_ZA
dc.subjectMaster of the High Courten_ZA
dc.subjectTrust inter vivosen_ZA
dc.subjectTrust beneficiaryen_ZA
dc.subjectTestamentary trust (trust mortis causa)en_ZA
dc.subjectTrusteeen_ZA
dc.subjectDissertation (LL.M. (Private Law))--University of the Free State, 2006en_ZA
dc.subjectTrusts and trustees -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.subjectTrusts and trustees -- Law and legislation -- South Africaen_ZA
dc.titleThe authorization of trustees in the South African law of trustsen_ZA
dc.typeDissertationen_ZA
dc.rights.holderUniversity of the Free Stateen_ZA


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record