[9] Nothing further transpired until 16 April 2012 when the applicant launched motion proceedings. The relief claimed in those proceedings was wide ranging and to a large extent not sustainable. Not surprisingly the applicant received advice, following a notice in terms of Rule 30 being filed by the respondents, to abandon those proceedings. In the result the application was withdrawn on 26 June 2012. [10] The present proceedings were launched on 24 January 2013. [11] The are more concise and he claims the following relief: applicant’s prayers ‘ The decision taken by the Council of Trustees of the NANGOF Trust on 21 November 2011 and made known to the applicant on 21 November 2011 is declared null and void and set aside. All action taken by the Council of Trustees of the NANGOF Trust relating to the demand for the resignation of the applicant as trustee, is set aside. The applicant be and is hereby retrospectively re-instated as trustee of the NANGOF Trust from 21 November 2011. Costs of suit, including the costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. Further and/or alternative relief.’ [12] Ms. Schneider who appeared for the applicant submits that the Council of Trustees is a tribunal which is required to act with procedural fairness and to apply the principles of natural justice, which it is said the Council of Trustees failed to do when they requested the applicant to resign. The decision making functions amount to administrative action which can consequently be reviewed by this Court. [13] Reliance is placed on Article 18 of the Constitution and the Court’s common law power of review. [14] It was further submitted that in any event, the Council did not comply with the contractual obligations created in the Deed of Trust. [15] Ms. de Jager who appeared on behalf of the respondents argues that the relationship between the applicant on the one hand and the Trust and its trustees is a purely contractual relationship which is not reviewable. Ms. de Jager relies for this
[9] Nothing further transpired until 16 April 2012 when the applicant launched motion proceedings. The relief claimed in those proceedings was wide ranging and to a large extent not sustainable. Not surprisingly the applicant received advice, following a notice in terms of Rule 30 being filed by the respondents, to abandon those proceedings. In the result the application was withdrawn on 26 June 2012. [10] The present proceedings were launched on 24 January 2013. [11] The applicant’s prayers are more concise and he claims the following relief: ‘ The decision taken by the Council of Trustees of the NANGOF Trust on 21 November 2011 and made known to the applicant on 21 November 2011 is declared null and void and set aside. All action taken by the Council of Trustees of the NANGOF Trust relating to the demand for the resignation of the applicant as trustee, is set aside. The applicant be and is hereby retrospectively re-instated as trustee of the NANGOF Trust from 21 November 2011. Costs of suit, including the costs of one instructing and one instructed counsel. Further and/or alternative relief.’ [12] Ms. Schneider who appeared for the applicant submits that the Council of Trustees is a tribunal which is required to act with procedural fairness and to apply the principles of natural justice, which it is said the Council of Trustees failed to do when they requested the applicant to resign. The decision making functions amount to administrative action which can consequently be reviewed by this Court. [13] Reliance is placed on Article 18 of the Constitution and the Court’s common law power of review. [14] It was further submitted that in any event, the Council did not comply with the contractual obligations created in the Deed of Trust. [15] Ms. de Jager who appeared on behalf of the respondents argues that the relationship between the applicant on the one hand and the Trust and its trustees is a purely contractual relationship which is not reviewable. Ms. de Jager relies for this