Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright in all material published in PER/PELJ vests in the author, provided that authors grant, by submission of their contributions, permission that their contributions may be shared and adapted without restriction. An author furthermore agrees that the same contribution may not be published elsewhere without the written permission of the editor.
Anyone gaining access, electronically or otherwise, to a contribution to PER, may quote from such contribution, use the intellectual content thereof, share and adapt it, but subject to the following conditions:
you must give appropriate credit, provide a link and indicate if changes were made; and
the copyright of the author(s) may not be infringed in any way.
Main Article Content
Essentials of a valid trust revisited in the light of Khabola v Ralithabo [2011] ZAFSHC 62
Abstract
The trust is universally recognised and used. It is generally accepted that trust deeds meet the basic requirements. However, it is not always that simple and the courts are repeatedly forced to take deeds of trust under scrutiny. In such cases the court has to rule on the validity of the trust, the locus standi of the parties, trust administration, the intent of the parties or what the implications of an invalid trust are for previous and current agreements. Similar problems arose in Khabola v Ralithabo. The authors discuss this verdict and show that there is still much uncertainty on how certain trust aspects have to be dealt with, and emphasise the importance of testing every trust deed according to the essential requirements of a valid trust.
KEYWORDS: trust; trust deed; valid trust; basic requirements.
