Oaker and Others v Kriel NO; Rockland Group Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Kriel NO and Others

Two bewind trusts, Rockland Targeted Development Investment Fund (TDI) and Rockland Property Investment Fund (PIF), and their fund manager, Rockland Asset Management and Consulting (Pty) Ltd (RAM), were placed under curatorship in terms of s 5 of the Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Act 28 of 2001. The curator, Pierre du Plessis Kriel NO, instituted extensive claims in the Western Cape High Court against Wentzel Oaker and related companies, trusts, and individuals who controlled and managed the trusts’ funds. The claims arose from a complex series of property and share transactions involving the acquisition of Schaapkraal properties through Rapicorp companies. The curator alleged that the appellants diverted a corporate opportunity, breached fiduciary duties, overpaid for shares, charged excessive and irregular management and performance fees, and enriched themselves at the expense of pension and provident fund investors. The High Court granted substantial relief to the curator. The appellants appealed, and the curator cross-appealed. A related application to stay the appeal pending Constitutional Court proceedings was also brought.

The appeal was dismissed and the cross-appeal upheld with costs. The High Court’s order was set aside and replaced with a comprehensive order holding various defendants jointly and severally liable for over R232 million plus interest, additional amounts for irregular fees, and restitutionary relief. Certain agreements and share transfers were declared void ab initio. The matter was remitted to the High Court for determination of outstanding calculations. The Registrar was directed to forward the judgment to SAPS and the National Director of Public Prosecutions for possible investigation and prosecution.

The case is a leading Supreme Court of Appeal authority on the scope and strict enforcement of fiduciary duties under the Financial Institutions (Protection of Funds) Act. It underscores the court’s willingness to impose extensive personal and joint liability for conflicted transactions, diversion of corporate opportunities, and misuse of investor funds, particularly in the context of bewind trusts and pension fund investments. It also affirms the wide remedial powers of courts and curators to reverse unlawful transactions and protect beneficiaries.