THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 804/2022

In the matter between:
ESTATE LATE GOOLAM MURTUZA HAFIZ                    First Appellant
MOHAMED IQBAL ESSOP                                                Second Appellant
SAYED HOOSEN AHMED                                                  Third Appellant
and
AHMED ZAKIR HAFIZ

First Respondent
AKHMED RAZA WAHAB                                                Second Respondent
SAYED MUKTHAR MOHAMMED

Third Respondent
SHAKEEEL AHMED HAFIZ                                           Fourth Respondent
ANEEZ AHMED HAFIZ                                                       Fifth Respondent
MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT,
PIETERMARITZBURG                                                       Sixth Respondent
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, KWAZULU-NATAL           Seventh Respondent
eTHEKWINI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY      Eighth Respondent

Neutral citation: Estate late Hafiz and Others v Hafiz and Others (804/2022)
[2023] ZASCA 114 (27 July 2023)
Coram:
DAMBUZA ADP and GOOSEN JA and MALI, SIWENDU and
UNTERHALTER AJJA

Heard:
Appeal disposed of without the hearing of oral argument in terms of
s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ representatives via email, publication on the Supreme Court of Appeal
website and release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be
11h00 on 27 July 2023.
Summary: Trust – validity of deed of trust – requirements for valid trust
established – ambiguity in clause relating to succession of trustees – interpretation
of trust deed – appeal dismissed.

________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________
On appeal from: KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg
(Madondo AJP, Seegobin J and Ntshulana AJ, sitting as court of appeal):
Save to the extent set out in paragraph 2 below, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 2 of the order of the full court is varied so that the order reads
as follows:
‘1. The appeal is upheld.
2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and is substituted by the following:
2.1 It is declared that the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz Trust is valid and the said Trust
shall be administered in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Trust
Agreement dated 6 September 1994.
2.2 It is declared that the Trustee for the time being of the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz
Trust shall be Ahmed Zakir Hafiz (Identity no. 620928625089).
3. The first respondent, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent together with
the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz Trust, are directed to pay the first and second
applicants’ costs in respect of the application and counter application in the court
a quo and the appeal costs, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be
absolved.’
The appellants are ordered to pay the first and second respondents’ costs
of appeal.
________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
________________________________________________________________
Goosen JA (Dambuza ADP and Mali and Siwendu and Unterhalter AJJA
concuring):

[1] This appeal concerns the validity of the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz Trust (the
Hafiz Trust) created in 1994. The order challenged on appeal is that of the full
court of the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg (the
full court). It upheld an appeal against an order of the KwaZulu-Natal Division
of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg (the high court). Special leave to appeal was
granted by this Court on 3 December 2020.1

The parties
[2] The first appellant is the executor of the estate of the late Goolam Murtuza
Hafiz, who was the settlor and founder of the Hafiz Trust. The second and third
appellants, Mohamed Iqbal Essop and Sayed Hoosen Ahmed respectively, were
declared to be trustees of the Hafiz Trust by the high court.

[3] The first, second and third respondents were declared to be trustees by the
full court. Only the first and second respondents participated in the appeal. The
first, fourth and fifth respondents are the sons of Goolam Hafiz.2 The sixth
respondent is the Master of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg (the Master). The
seventh and eighth respondents, namely the Registrar of Deeds and the eThekwini
Municipality, took no part in the proceedings.

Background
[4] Goolam Hafiz was a prominent member of a Suni Islamic community in
Sherwood, Durban. In 1904, his grandfather, Hajee Shah Goolam Mohammed
(Hajee Mohammed), took ownership, in trust, of a property on which was erected
the Sherwood Mosque. The deed of transfer provided that, on the death of Hajee

1 The application was commenced before the high court in 2013. It was heard in February 2018 and judgment was
delivered on 23 August 2018. The appeal was heard by the full court on 27 January 2020 and judgment was
delivered on 12 May 2020.
2 I shall refer to these parties by name.

Mohammed, trusteeship would pass to his eldest male descendant and thereafter
to the eldest male descendant, in turn.3

[5] Hajee Mohammed handed over control of the mosque to his son, Goolam
Hafiz Soofi (Goolam Soofi), who held office until his death in 1953. Goolam
Soofi’s eldest son, Goolam Hafiz, then took up office as trustee of the Sherwood
mosque (the Mosque Trust).4

[6] In 1983, Goolam Hafiz’s eldest son, Ahmed Hafiz (the first respondent),
took up the running of the affairs of the mosque on a full-time basis.  In 1991,
Goolam Hafiz purchased Sub 174 (of 136) of the Farm Riding 15152 (Property
1), situated alongside the mosque. Ahmed Hafiz raised a loan to purchase the
property. The loan was settled from donations by members of the Suni
community. On 6 September 1994, Goolam Hafiz (as settlor) and Ahmed Hafiz
(as First Trustee) entered into a written agreement (the 1994 deed of trust), in
which Goolam Hafiz undertook to donate Property 1 in trust to the Hafiz Trust.
Ahmed Hafiz was named as First Trustee and undertook to administer the trust
for the purposes set out in the agreement.

[7] The Hafiz Trust was registered and the Master issued letters of authority to
Ahmed Hafiz on 21 September 1994. Property 1 was donated to the Hafiz Trust
on 30 September 1995 and was transferred to the trust on 16 February 1996.
During 1996, a second property, Portion 177 (of 135) of the Farm Riding 15152
(Property 2), also alongside the mosque, was acquired. Goolam Hafiz transferred
it to the Hafiz Trust in May 2000.

3 In the event of a failure of progeniture trusteeship would vest in a person elected by the Suni community.
4 The 1904 deed of transfer of the property on which the Sherwood mosque is situated does not name the trust.
In the papers reference was made to the Suni Mohamedan Faith Trust.

[8] In August 2004, Property 1 and Property 2 were linked by a notarial tie
agreement concluded between the Mosque Trust and the Hafiz Trust, represented
by Goolam Hafiz and Ahmed Hafiz respectively. This was to enable the
properties to be developed by the construction of a hall, residential buildings and
an office complex.  The Hafiz Trust was advised to register as a public benefit
organisation in terms of the Nonprofit Organisations Act 71 of 1997. This
required an amendment of the 1994 deed of trust.

[9] Goolam Hafiz and his three sons met on 14 December 2004 to amend the
deed of trust. The 2004 deed of amendment was approved by resolution and
signed by each of the participants. At a subsequent meeting held on 3 January
2005, the assumption of two further trustees was approved, namely Akhmed
Wahab and Sayed Mohamed.

[10] On 31 January 2005, the 2004 deed of amendment and resolution
approving the assumption of additional trustees, was lodged with the Master. On
4 February 2005, the Master advised that Shakeel and Aneez Hafiz had not been
appointed as trustees of the Hafiz Trust. The Master was nevertheless requested
to proceed with the appointment of Akhmed Wahab and Sayed Mohamed as
trustees. The Master issued letters of authority to them on 26 August 2005.

[11] The Hafiz Trust was registered as a non profit organisation and managed
by the three appointed trustees, without demure, for a period of six years. In 2011,
Goolam Hafiz decided that his two younger sons, Shakeel and Aneez Hafiz,
should also be appointed as trustees. The Master was requested to appoint them
and did so. In June 2011, Goolam Hafiz convened a meeting where it was decided
to appoint two further trustees, namely the Mohamed Essop and Sayed Ahmed.

[12] In response to the request for appointment of these additional trustees, the
Master convened a meeting of the trustees of the Hafiz Trust. The Master
informed the trustees that she had formed the view that all of the trustee
appointments ought to be withdrawn and that the deed of trust required
amendment. Pending the amendment of the deed the Hafiz Trust was to be
administered by Ahmed Hafiz and Goolam Hafiz.

[13] Ahmed Hafiz and Akhmed Wahab indicated that they intended to
challenge the Master’s decision to withdraw the letters of authority issued in
2005. In the meantime, an agreement of trust was concluded between Goolam
Hafiz and Sayed Mohamed, Shakeel Hafiz, Aneez Hafiz, Mohamed Essop and
Sayed Ahmed (the 2011 deed of trust), on 14 December 2011 which purported to
amend the 1994 trust deed. Ahmed Hafiz and Akhmed Wakab were not involved.
On 22 December 2011, the Master issued letters of authority appointing the five
persons involved as trustees of the Hafiz Trust. Following objections and
representations the Master issued a ruling, on 27 July 2012, which: (a) withdrew
all letters of authority issued after 21 September 1994;(b) withdrew acceptance
of any amendments to the trust deed effected after that date; and (c) expressed the
opinion that the 1994 deed of trust only provided for the appointment of the first
trustee upon the death of the settlor.

The litigation
[14] Goolam Hafiz brought an application before the high court to declare that
the Hafiz Trust was not a valid trust (the main application). He sought the transfer
of the donated property, Property 1, back into his name.5 Ahmed Hafiz and
Akhmed Wahab launched a counter-application, in which they sought a
declaration that the Hafiz Trust was validly founded and that it be administered

5 The notice of motion made no reference to Property 2 which was also donated to the Hafiz Trust.

in terms of the 2004 deed of amendment. They also sought confirmation that they,
together with Sayed Mohamed, were the trustees of the Hafiz Trust. During the
course of the litigation Goolam Hafiz was substituted by the executor of his estate.

[15] The high court found that a valid trust was not established. It held that  the
1994 deed of trust was amended by the 2011 deed of trust, and that this latter deed
established a valid trust. It ordered that the parties to the 2011 agreement, together
with Ahmed Hafiz and Akhmed Wahab, were the trustees of the Hafiz Trust.6

[16] The full court set aside the high court’s order. It declared that the Hafiz
Trust was validly created and that it was to be administered in accordance with
the 1994 deed as amended by the 2004 deed of amendment. It declared that
Ahmed Hafiz, Akmed Wahab and Sayed Mohamed were the trustees of the Hafiz
Trust. In addition, it varied clause 4.1 of the 1994 deed of trust to read that the
First Trustee was Ahmed Hafiz and upon his death, the office of trustee would
descend to his eldest male issue.

The issues
[17] Three issues arise for decision. The first is whether the Hafiz Trust was
validly created in 1994. The second is whether the 1994 trust deed was amended,
and if so, by what instrument. The third concerns the identity of the trustees of
the Hafiz Trust.

Was a trust validly established?
[18] The validity of the Hafiz Trust depends upon whether:
(a) Goolam Hafiz intended to create a trust in his life time;

6 These orders were not sought in the notice of motion. They were raised in answer to the counter-application.

(b) his intention was expressed in a manner that created an obligation upon the
trustee or trustees and whether such obligation was accepted;
(c) whether the trust property was defined with reasonable certainty;
(d) whether the objects of the trust were set out with reasonable certainty and
whether they are lawful.7

[19] The lawfulness of the objects of the Hafiz Trust and the definition of the
trust property were not in issue. The controversy centered on the expressed
intention of the settlor and whether the 1994 trust deed envisaged the appointment
of a trustee in the life time of the settlor.

[20] Whether a trust was validly established depends on the evidence. An inter
vivos trust is created by a bilateral agreement between its founder and the
prospective trustee or trustees.8 The agreement may be oral or in written form.
The document alleged to be the trust deed serves as evidence of the creation of
the trust along with other relevant evidence.9 This may concern the declared
intention of the settlor determined at the time that a trust instrument is executed10;
the assumption of the obligations of trusteeship by an intended trustee; the formal
appointment of such trustee; and the transfer of ownership and control of the trust
property into the hands of the person said to be the trustee.

[21] To the extent that a document alleged to be a trust instrument or clause
thereof is equivocal, it will be read in the context of the evidence to determine

7 Administrator, Estate Richards v Nichol and Another 1996 (4) SA 253 (C) at 258D-F; Cameron et al Honorés
South African Law of Trusts 6 ed (2018) at 136-137.
8 Crookes NO v Watson 1956 (1) SA 277 (A) at 298B-C.
9 The intention to create a trust must be expressed in a form that is apt for the creation of an obligation. Where it
is expressed in written form by way of testament, transfer, treaty or contract such formalities as are prescribed for
the written form apply. A trust may also be constituted orally. The written form, where it exists, is evidence of the
requirements for constitution of the trust. See Cameron et al Honorés South African Law of Trusts 6 ed (2018) at
160 -162.
10 Moosa and Another v Jhavery 1958 (4) SA 165 (N) at 169D-F; Mohamed NO and Others v Ally 1999 (2) SA
42 (SCA); [1999] 1 All SA 419 (A) at 424.

whether it supports the conclusion that a valid trust was created thereby.
Interpretation to determine the meaning and effect of the instrument, found to
create a valid trust, would involve the unitary exercise of considering of the text,
context, and purpose of the instrument.11

[22] The 1994 trust deed states that it is an agreement entered into between
Goolam Hafiz, as settlor, and Ahmed Hafiz as First Trustee. It was signed by
them in their respective capacities. The preamble reads:
‘Whereas it has been agreed between the parties that it is the intention and desire of the
SETTLOR that he shall donate sub 174 of 136 of the Farm Riding No 15152 in extent of One
thousand and eighty square metres (1080), to be administered by the Trustee or Trustees to
operate a Trust for the objects set out more fully hereunder and whereas the First Trustee has
agreed to accept ownership of the Trust and to undertake the obligations of the Trust according
to the terms set out in this agreement.’

[23] The expressed purpose was to transfer ownership of Property 1 into a trust.
Ahmed Hafiz was appointed as trustee upon registration of the Hafiz Trust.
Thereafter Property 1 was donated to the Hafiz Trust and was transferred into the
name of the Hafiz Trust. The evidence establishes that a second property was
donated to the Hafiz Trust; that a notarial tie agreement was concluded with the
Mosque Trust; and that the properties were extensively developed.

[24] The only question is whether clause 4 of the 1994 deed of trust was
intended to mean that the First Trustee would only be appointed upon the death
of the settlor. If that is so, then the control of the trust property would remain in
the hands of the settlor until his death and could only then pass to the First

11 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality [2012] ZASCA 13; [2012] 2 All SA 262 (SCA);
2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA) para 18. Chisuse v Director-General, Department of Home Affairs [2020] ZACC 20;
2020 (10) BCLR 1173 (CC); 2020 (6) SA 14 (CC) para 52; University of Johannesburg v Auckland Park
Theological Seminary and Another [2021] ZACC 13; 2021 (8) BCLR 807 (CC); 2021 (6) SA 1 (CC) para 65.
Capitec Bank Holdings Limited and Another v Coral Lagoon Investments 194 (Pty) Ltd and Others [2021]
ZASCA 99; [2021] 3 All SA 647 (SCA); 2022 (1) SA 100 (SCA) para 25.

Trustee. The envisaged trust would therefore be constituted on the death of the
settlor.

[25] Clause 4 reads as follows:
‘There shall be perpetual succession as follows:
4.1
On the death of the settlor the office of Trustee shall descend to the First Trustee and
thereafter to the eldest male issue of the first Trustee, if any.
4.2
Failing succession as envisaged in Clause 4.1 the office of the Trustee shall descend to
the second trustee and thereafter to the eldest male of the second trustee, if any.
4.3
Failing succession as envisaged in Clause 4.1 and 4.2 above the office of Trustee shall
descend to the third trustee and thereafter to the eldest male issue of the third trustee, if any.
4.4
Failing succession as envisaged in clause 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 the office of Trustee shall
pass to the male descendants from the female issue of the settlor in the same manner as
envisaged in clause 4.1 and 4.2 and 4.3 above.12

[26] The phrase ‘office of trustee’ ordinarily refers to the position of trusteeship
and the rights and obligations conferred by law on the occupant of that office.13
In its ordinary meaning, it refers to a specific office occupied in relation to a
specified trust.14  At face value the clause suggests that the office  of trusteeship
would ‘descend’ or pass to the First Trustee upon the death of the settlor. There
is, however, no other text in the 1994 deed which confers upon the settlor any
responsibilities or duties as trustee. The settlor was not appointed as trustee. There
is no evidence that he, at any stage, regarded himself as a trustee of the Hafiz
Trust. The evidence is to the contrary, as demonstrated by the notarial tie
agreement. The 1994 deed of trust instead points to Ahmed Hafiz as First Trustee
of the Hafiz Trust, his acceptance of the office and the Master’s acceptance of his

12 Clause 1 states that the ‘second trustee’ shall refer to Shakeel Hafiz and the ‘third trustee’ shall refer to Aneez
Hafiz.
13 See the explanation on Trusteeship as a public office in Cameron et al Honorés South African Law of Trusts 6
ed (2018) at 69 and the trustee’s acceptance of office at 247.
14 Ibid at 248.

appointment. It was not intended that the settlor should hold the‘office of trustee’
in the Hafiz Trust.

[27] The expressed purpose of clause 4 was to provide for perpetual succession
of the Hafiz Trust. It is with this in mind that it must be interpreted. The clause
deals with the continued existence of the trust upon the occurrence of the death
of the settlor. The First Trustee was named as trustee elsewhere in the deed of
trust and was appointed on that basis. Clause 4 therefore provides for the
continued existence of the office of trusteeship after the death of the settlor. Read
in the context of the deed of trust as a whole, it does not mean that the First Trustee
would only be appointed once the settlor had died. Upon the occurrence of the
death of the settlor the office of trusteeship would continue to be held by the First
Trustee as incumbent and thereafter be occupied as envisaged by clause 4.  Seen
in this light, clause 4 merely reflects an expression of an intention on the part of
the settlor to ensure that control of the Hafiz Trust would remain with his
descendants. It can thus be read in a manner that is consistent with the overriding
intention expressed in the deed of trust.

[28] The evidence as a whole, overwhelmingly establishes that a trust was in
fact constituted by the deed of trust and that ownership and control of the trust
property passed into the hands of the nominated First Trustee during the lifetime
of the settlor.  The full court therefore correctly found that the trust was validly
established.

[29] The full court varied clause 4.1 to read that upon the death of the first
trustee, the office of trustee shall descend to his male descendant. It left clauses
4.2 and 4.3 in their original form. In doing so, it brought clause 4.1 in line with
what had already occurred. It exercised the discretion conferred upon it by s 13
of the Trust Property Control Act, 57 of 1988 (the TPCA).

[30] There was, however, no application made to vary clause 4.1 of the 1994
deed of trust. No case was made out to suggest that the clause  served to hamper
the achievement of the objects of the founder, or was prejudicial to the interests
of beneficiaries, or was in conflict with the public interest. Section 13 does not
confer upon a court a general power to vary a deed of trust. A court’s power is
confined to the circumstances which are set out in the section.15 Once the full
court had determined that the Hafiz Trust was validly established, any obstacle
that clause 4.1 might have posed to the achievement of the objects of the trust
was negated. It was not open to the court, mero motu, to vary clause 4.1. The full
court’s order of variation cannot stand.

The amendment of the deed of trust
[31] The second question is whether the 1994 trust deed was amended by the
2004 deed of amendment as sought in the counter-application. The facts giving
rise to the 2004 deed of amendment were common ground. Shakeel and Aneez
Hafiz were not trustees of the Hafiz Trust when they agreed to the amendment of
the 1994 deed of trust at the meeting held in December 2004. Goolam Hafiz had
contended that it was always his intention that his two younger sons also be
appointed as trustees of the trust. Ahmed Hafiz disputed this version.16 He stated
that it was always known that they were not trustees. They were not required to
agree to an amendment of the trust deed in their capacity as trustees. All that was

15 Gowar and Another v Gowar and Others [2016] ZASCA 101; [2016] 3 All SA 382 (SCA); 2016 (5) SA 225
(SCA) para 34.
16 No finding was made by the full court on this aspect, and it is not necessary that such finding be made. The
1994 deed of trust does not appoint them as trustees. If clause 4 is taken to relate to the appointment of trustees to
the ‘office of trustee’ created by the 1994 deed, then on the plain meaning of the language used, they would only
be appointed as trustees in the event of the failure of appointment of a trustee in terms of clause 4.1. It is therefore
difficult to reconcile this with the donor’s assertion that it was always intended that they should be appointed as
trustees. The only indication that they were required to be appointed as trustees appears from clause 7, which
deals with the variation of the trust.

required was that they agree, as ‘potential’ trustees, who may succeed to
trusteeship as provided by clause 4 of the deed of trust.

[32] Clause 7.1 provides that the trust deed may be varied by agreement in
writing between the first, second and third trustees. Clause 7.2 states that any such
agreement shall be binding ‘on any person appointed as Trustee and on any
beneficiaries of [the] Trust, whether majors or minors, born or unborn, at the date
at which such agreement is concluded’.

[33] The question that arises is whether clause 7.1 means that an amendment
can only be effected by the named trustees acting in their capacity as trustees. If
that is so, then the amendment of the trust deed in 2004 (as also in 2011), was not
validly effected. Counsel for the first respondent argued that the clause does not
require that the second and third trustees act as trustees. All that was required was
that the persons named as trustees should agree to the variation of the deed of
trust. The original trust deed did not envisage that the second and third trustees
be appointed as trustees from the outset. They agreed as a matter of fact to the
amendment of the trust deed.

[34] Such construction would give rise to absurdity. It would mean that a trustee
could enter into an agreement with other persons who were not required to act in
a fiduciary capacity to amend a deed of trust. It would offend the essential
principles upon which a trustee assumes the obligations imposed by the trust. The
language of clause 7.1 is clear. It means that a variation of the trust deed may only
be effected by the named trustees acting in their capacity as trustees. Accordingly,
the agreement to vary the original deed by the deed of amendment of 2004, could
not and did not validly vary the original deed of trust.  Therefore, the 1994 trust
deed remains extant.

The appointed trustees
[35] The final question concerns the order declaring Ahmed Hafiz, Akhmed
Wahab and Sayed Mohamed to be the trustees for the time being of the Hafiz
Trust. There was no controversy concerning the appointment of Ahmed Hafiz,
who was designated by the trust deed to be the First Trustee. Letters of authority
were issued to him on 21 September 1994.

[36] The 1994 trust deed is, apart from clause 4, silent about the appointment of
other trustees. It says nothing about the number of trustees to be appointed. The
language employed in clauses 5, 6 and 7 of the deed suggests that more than one
trustee may be appointed. Where a trust deed is silent as to the appointment of
additional trustees, the Master may appoint any person to act as trustee of the
trust.17

[37] The affidavits say very little about the appointment of additional trustees
in 2005.  The affidavits merely state that they were asked to serve as trustees in
order to ensure that ‘un-related’ persons were appointed to secure registration as
a non-profit organistion. The request emanated from a ‘meeting of trustees’
involving Shakeel and Aneez Hafiz, and took the form of a resolution adopted by
the ‘trustees’. They had no authority to act in that capacity. Nothing is known
about the basis upon which the Master then exercised the discretion to appoint
the additional trustees. The counter application did not seek an order setting aside
the decision of the Master to withdraw the letters of authority. It sought their
appointment by order of court. For such order to be made the court would have
to be placed in the same position as the Master would be to enable it to exercise

17 Section 7 of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988 provides that:
‘(1)  If the office of trustee cannot be filled or becomes vacant, the Master shall, in the absence of any provision
in the trust instrument, after consultation with so many interested parties as he may deem necessary, appoint any
person as trustee.
(2)  When the Master considers it desirable, he may, notwithstanding the provisions of the trust instrument, appoint
as co-trustee of any serving trustee any person whom he deems fit.’

the discretion. There is, however, no factual basis upon which the court could do
so. In these circumstances, the full court erred in its declaration since there was
insufficient basis in the evidence to support the order.

[38] The position of Ahmed Hafiz is different. He was nominated as a trustee
by the settlor. He accepted his nomination and was duly appointed by the Master
on 21 September 1994. The Master’s subsequent concerns relating to the
appointment of trustees did not relate to the appointment of Ahmed Hafiz as
trustee.18

[39] In relation to costs, it was submitted that the full court ought to have
ordered that the costs be borne by the Hafiz Trust. This was premised on the
contention that the litigation arose because of the actions of the settlor and the
disputed appointment of trustees by the Master. The litigation was said to have
been conducted in the interest of the Hafiz Trust. However, what is plain from
the record is that the real dispute relates to the position of trusteeship of the Hafiz
Trust. There is, therefore, no basis to interfere with the full court’s costs order.
As regards the costs on appeal, the appellants unsuccessfully persisted in
supporting the high court order. The fact that the full court’s order must be varied
does not warrant a departure from the ordinary rule regarding costs. There is also
no reason why the costs should be borne by the Hafiz Trust.

[40] In the result, the following order will issue:
Save to the extent set out in paragraph 2 below, the appeal is dismissed.
Paragraph 2 of the order of the full court is varied so that the order reads
as follows:
‘1. The appeal is upheld.

18 The Master’s ruling related to appointments made after 21 September 1994. See para 17 above.

2. The order of the court a quo is set aside and is substituted by the following:
2.1 It is declared that the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz Trust is valid and the said Trust
shall be administered in accordance with the terms of the Memorandum of Trust
Agreement dated 6 September 1994.
2.2 It is declared that the Trustee for the time being of the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz
Trust shall be Ahmed Zakir Hafiz (Identity no. 620928625089).
3. The first respondent, the fifth respondent and the sixth respondent together with
the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz Trust, are directed to pay the first and second
applicants’ costs in respect of the application and counter application in the court
a quo and the appeal costs, jointly and severally the one paying the other to be
absolved.’
The appellants are ordered to pay the first and second respondents’ costs
of appeal.

_________________
G G GOOSEN
JUDGE OF APPEAL

Appearances
For the appellants:

V I Gajoo SC
Instructed by:

Harkoo Brijlal & Reddy Inc, Durban

H Bekker Attorneys Inc, Bloemfontein

For the first and second respondents: F M Moola SC
Instructed by:
Larson Falconer Hassan Parsee Inc,
Umhlanga Rocks

Phatshoane Henney Inc, Bloemfontein.

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
From:
The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal
Date:

27 July 2023
Status:
Immediate
The following summary is for the benefit of the media in the reporting of this case and does not
form part of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Appeal
Estate late Hafiz and Others v Hafiz and Others (804/2022) [2023] ZASCA 114 (27 July 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) today dismissed an appeal against an order of the KwaZulu-Natal
Division of the High Court, Pietermaritzburg sitting as a court of appeal (the full court), which set aside
an order declaring that the Goolam Murtuza Hafiz Trust (the Hafiz Trust) had not been validly
established.
In 1991, Goolam Murtaza Hafiz (Goolam Hafiz), who was then the trustee and Imam of the Sherwood
Mosque, acquired a property adjacent to the mosque. It was purchased by way of loan finance and the
loan was repaid from donations received from the community served by the mosque. In 1994, Goolam
Hafeez entered into an agreement with his eldest son, Ahmed Hafiz, to establish the Hafiz Trust.
Goolam Hafiz named Ahmed Hafiz as first trustee of the Hafiz Trust. He donated the property to the
Hafiz Trust to be used for charitable purposes in accordance with the tenets of the Sunni Islamic faith.
Ahmed Hafiz accepted the obligations as trustee. The Hafeez Trust was registered by the Master of the
High Court (the Master) and letters of authority were issued to Ahmed Hafiz.
In 1996, a second property, also adjacent to the mosque, was acquired by Goolam Hafiz and donated
to the Trust. In 2004, the Trust Deed was amended to enable the Hafiz Trust to be registered as a non-
profit organisation. Two additional trustees were appointed in 2005.
In 2011, Goolam Hafiz sought to have his two younger sons appointed as trustees to the Hafiz Trust.
Letters of authority were initially issued by the Master. When still further trustees were sought to be
appointed, the Master took the view that the appointments of all of the trustees ought to be withdrawn.
The Master had formed the view that a clause in the original trust deed, which provided for the
succession of trustees only allowed for the appointment of trustees upon the death of the settlor.
In 2013, Goolam Hafeez brought an application before the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court,
Pietermaritzburg (the high court) to declare that the Hafiz Trust had not been validly established. He
sought the transfer of the properties back into his name. A counter application was brought by two of
the trustees appointed in 2005. They sought an order declaring the Trust to have been validly
established and that it was to be administered in terms of the 2004 Deed of Amendment.
The matter came before the high court in February 2018 and on 23 August 2018, Balton J dismissed
the counter application. The high court found that the Hafiz Trust was not validly established. The high
court, however, found that a Trust was validly established by an amendment, recorded in a deed of
trust executed in December 2011 (the 2011 Deed of Trust).
The matter went on appeal to the full court on 27 January 2020. On 12 May 2020, the full court upheld
the appeal. The full court found that the Hafiz Trust had been validly established in 1994 and that the

trust deed had been amended by the deed of amendment in 2004. It declared that Ahmed Hafiz,
Akhmed Wahab and Sayed Mohammed were the trustees of the Hafiz Trust.
Special leave to appeal was granted by the SCA. The appeal was disposed of without oral argument in
terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013.
The SCA held that the validity of a Trust is established by evidence and that the Trust Deed executed
in 1994, formed part of the evidentiary material upon which a determination of validity was to be made.
It held that the terms of the 1994 Trust Deed, properly interpreted, established a clear and unequivocal
intention on the part of the settlor to establish a Trust. It found that the named trustee, Ahmed Hafiz,
accepted the obligations imposed upon him by the Trust Deed. The donation of the property by the
settlor divested the settlor of control of the property, which passed to the trustee on behalf of the Hafiz
Trust.
The SCA found that the clause dealing with the succession of trustees, expressed an intention on the
part of the settlor that his descendants remain in control of the Hafiz Trust. It did not have the effect that
ownership of the trust property would only pass to the trustee upon the death of the settlor. The SCA
found, upon the evidence as a whole, that the Hafiz Trust had been validly constituted in 1994. The
SCA found that the full court did not have before it an application to vary clause 4.1 of the Trust Deed
in terms of s 13 of the Trust Property Control Act 57 of 1988. It was therefore not entitled to vary the
clause.
In relation to the amendment of the 1994 Trust Deed, it found that clause 7, which provided for
amendment or variation of the Deed, required agreement between the first, second and third trustees.
These were stated to be the sons of Goolam Hafiz, as settlor. At the time that the amendment was
agreed, the second and third trustees had not been issued with letters of authority by the Master. They
were therefore not entitled to act in the capacity as trustees. The 1994 Trust Deed had therefore not
validly been amended by the 2004 Deed of Amendment.
Insofar as the appointment of additional trustees was concerned, the SCA found that there had been
no challenge to the Master’s decision to withdraw the issuing of those letters of authority. It found that
the papers provided no factual basis upon which a court could, in the exercise of its discretion, appoint
the additional trustees. It could therefore only confirm the order appointing the named first trustee.
The required variation of the full court’s order did not alter the substantive determination on appeal.
Save for varying the full court’s order the SCA dismissed the appeal with costs.

--------ends--------