The first, second, and third applicants are grandchildren of the late Mr Aubrey Mei, who passed away on 21 May 2025. The fourth applicant is their mother and executrix of their late father Phakamisumzi Mei's estate (Phakamisumzi was Aubrey's predeceased son). The deceased owned several properties through the Aubrey Mei Family Trust and AG Mei (Pty) Ltd, generating rental income. The second respondent reported the death and was allegedly appointed executrix, incorrectly stating the deceased died intestate. In fact, the deceased left a will appointing the first, second, and third applicants as beneficiaries of a testamentary trust. The first respondent, as sole remaining trustee of the Aubrey Mei Family Trust, took control of properties and collected rental income (approximately R100,000) without accounting to the estate or beneficiaries. The third respondent took possession of the deceased's motor vehicle. The applicants sought urgent interim relief to preserve estate assets pending appointment of a proper executor.
A rule nisi was issued calling on the first respondent to show cause on 21 October 2025 why a final order should not be granted: (1) interdicting the first respondent from destroying, dissipating or diminishing estate assets including rental income; (2) ordering the first respondent to collect and deposit rental income into the company bank account; (3) protecting and preserving the status quo regarding immovable and movable property; (4) ordering the first respondent to maintain proper records of rental income and make them available to applicants; and (5) ordering the first respondent to pay costs. Paragraph 2(a) was given immediate effect pending the return date. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the second and third respondents incurred to date on a party-and-party scale.
Where a sole trustee exercises extensive powers over significant trust and estate assets, fails to comply with statutory obligations under section 10(1) of the Trust Property Control Act to maintain a trust account, lacks transparency in administering assets and collecting rental income, and challenges the validity of a deceased's will that creates competing interests, a court may grant an urgent interlocutory interdict to preserve estate assets pending appointment of an executor. Beneficiaries under a trust deed and nominated beneficiaries under a testamentary trust have sufficient prima facie rights to justify protective relief. The objective test for apprehension of irreparable harm is satisfied where unchecked trustee powers, combined with lack of transparency and accountability, create reasonable grounds to fear dissipation of assets. Relief that merely requires proper record-keeping and preservation of the status quo does not inconvenience a trustee and represents the only satisfactory remedy in such circumstances.
The court observed that the procedural remedy under rule 6(12) for urgent applications is notoriously susceptible to abuse and must be approached with extreme care, with applicants required to clearly set out facts explaining why substantial relief cannot be obtained later. The court cited Caledon Street Restaurants CC v D'Aviera regarding non-suiting for lack of urgency, but noted that where a dispute has been fully ventilated with comprehensive heads of argument, it serves no purpose to strike the matter from the roll at a late stage. The court noted that requiring applicants to pursue alternative remedies such as reporting maladministration to the Master, seeking removal under section 20 of the Trust Property Control Act, invoking Companies Act provisions, or instituting action proceedings would be unreasonable and potentially derisive given the imminent risk posed by the first respondent's conduct.
This case illustrates the court's approach to urgent applications for interim interdicts to preserve estate assets where a sole trustee exercises extensive control over trust and estate property without transparency or accountability. It demonstrates the court's willingness to grant protective relief even where urgency requirements are not strictly met, if objective circumstances warrant immediate intervention. The judgment reinforces trustees' statutory duties under section 10(1) of the Trust Property Control Act to maintain proper trust accounts, and emphasizes that failure to do so, combined with lack of transparency, can justify urgent protective relief. The case also clarifies that applicants for interlocutory interdicts need only establish prima facie rights rather than clear rights on a balance of probabilities, and that the strength of prospects of success impacts the degree to which the balance of convenience must favour the applicant.