Exam (elaborations)
CSL2601 Latest exam pack 2024(Questions and answers)
- Course
- Institution
CSL2601 Latest exam pack 2024(Questions and answers) With accurate answers and assurance that they are in the exam.
[Show more]
Seller
Follow
laureenkanyiri02
Reviews received
Content preview
CSL2601 LATESTEXAM
PACK 2024
QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS
FOR ASSISTANCE CONTACT
EMAIL:laureenkanyiri02@gmail.com
,SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
[REPORTABLE]
Case No:4366/2016
Before the Hon. Ms Justice Slingers
Hearing: 3 June 2020
Judgment Delivered: 24 June 2020
In the matter between:
AJ Applicant
and
JJ First Respondent
J J N.O.
in his capacity as Trustee for the time being of the
Tafika Trust Second Respondent
CHRISTEL SADLER N.O. in her capacity as
Trustee for the time being of the Tafika Trust Third Respondent
THE MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION Fourth Respondent
L C ABELHEIM LIMITED
(in his capacity as the Mauritian Trustee of the
Tafika Trust, Mauritius) Fifth Respondent
, 2
______________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
SLINGERS J
INTRODUCTION
[1] On 6 December 1980 the applicant and the first respondent were married to each
other, out of community of property and the marriage still subsists. On 14 March
2016 the applicant instituted divorce proceedings wherein she pleaded inter alia
that the assets of The Tafika Trust registered with the Master of the High Court
under IT number 5317/2007 (“the Tafika trust”) and the Tafika Trust Mauritius,
(herein after collectively referred to as “the trusts”) are beneficially owned and
controlled by the first respondent, do not constitute assets owned by the trusts
and form part of the first respondent’s estate. Furthermore, the applicant pleads
that the trusts are the alter ego of the first respondent who abused the trust’s
form by utilising the trusts as vehicles to accumulate personal wealth.
[2] In pleading to the particulars of claim, the first respondent admits that he
financed the acquisition of certain assets of the trusts, caused the growth in value
of certain of the assets of the trusts and assisted in the maintenance and running
costs of certain of the assets of the trusts. The first respondent denies that the
trusts were beneficially owned and controlled by him or that they form part of his
estate. Furthermore, the first respondent denies that he was utilising the trusts
as vehicles to accumulate personal wealth.
[3] It is evident from the pleadings in the divorce action that the disputed issues
include whether or not it would be just and equitable for the first respondent to be
directed, in terms of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act 70 of 1979, as amended
(“the Divorce Act”), to transfer to and in favour of the applicant an amount
, 3
equal to fifty percent of the difference between the net value of the assets of the
parties respective estates. Related hereto is the disputed issue of whether or not
the net value of the trusts’ assets held by the trustees at the time of the
dissolution of the parties’ marriage should be added to the net value of the first
respondent’s personal estate for the purposes of determining the applicant’s
claim in terms of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act read with subsections 7(5)(a)
and (d) thereof.
[4] To this end the applicant seeks the following relief in the divorce action:
i) an order declaring that the assets of the trusts are held and controlled by
the first respondent in his personal capacity and for his personal benefit;
ii) an order in terms of section 7(3) of the Divorce Act directing the first
respondent to pay to the applicant an amount equal to fifty percent of the
difference between the net value of the assets (including those of the
trusts) in the parties respective estates;
iii) as against the second to fourth respondents and, subject to the
recognition of any order granted by the court against the fifth respondent
in Mauritius, and in the event that the first respondent holds insufficient
assets in his personal capacity to satisfy the applicant’s claim in terms of
section 7(3) of the Divorce Act an order:
a) directing the second to the fourth respondents and the fifth respondent
within 60 days of the granting of the relief sought to transfer to the first
respondent, in his personal capacity and at their costs, the assets held
by them in their names; and
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller laureenkanyiri02. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $2.50. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
76799 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now
Recently viewed by you
