The appointment of an executor is the cornerstone of the administration of a deceased estate. Once an executor is appointed by the Master of the High Court, an executor assumes a fiduciary duty to administer a deceased estate lawfully, whether the estate is testate or intestate. The appointment of an executor thus plays a pivotal role in acting in the best interests of the beneficiaries, identifying assets and liabilities within the estate, and ensuring that such assets are realized and similarly, liabilities are settled. Given the centrality of this role, disputes concerning executors, particularly applications for their removal, are not uncommon and is often seen as a serious step[1], which the court will not grant lightly.
Section 54 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965
Section 54 of the Administration of Estates Act[2] (“the Act”) regulates the removal of an executor and distinguishes between the removal by the Court and the Master of the High Court.
Removal by the Court
In terms of section 54(1)(a) of the Act, the Court may remove an executor from office in instances where the nominated executor was a party to an agreement and has undertaken to grant an heir, debtor or creditor any benefit they are not entitled to,[3] or where the executor, whether directly or indirectly persuaded any person to vote his recommendation to the Master of the High Court by way of misrepresentation; or in exchange for any reward promised.[4] Furthermore, an executor may be removed from their appointment if they have expressed or accepted a benefit from any person on condition that such party shall perform work for the estate.[5] Lastly, and often relied upon in practice, an executor may be removed where the Court is satisfied that it is undesirable for such an executor to act in such capacity of the estate concerned.[6]
Removal by the Master of the High Court
In terms of section 54(1)(b) of the Act, the Master of the High Court may remove an executor from office where the executor has been nominated in terms of a Will that has been revoked or declared void by the Court either wholly or insofar as it relates to his nomination, or if the Master is of the opinion that the Will is invalid for any reason.[7]
An executor may also be removed from office in instances where he or she fails to furnish the Master of the High Court with security timeously.[8] The Master of the High Court may request a bond of security to ensure that heirs receive their lawful and rightful inheritance in a deceased estate to avoid any misappropriation or misuse by the executor. Consequently, a bond of security is a form of financial guarantee that protects heirs against any losses or risks that may incur to the estate due to the executor’s negligence or improper administration of the estate.[9]
Furthermore, an executor may be removed from office where he or she has been convicted of a crime within the Republic of South Africa, or elsewhere. Some examples of such crimes include theft, fraud, forgery, perjury or uttering a forged instrument and is therefore sentenced to serve a term of imprisonment without the option of a fine, or to a fine exceeding R 2 000.[10] Notably, the fact the executor has committed some crime, will not necessarily be a ground for removal unless the crime relates to the estate or involves allied crimes, fraud or theft.[11]
An executor may also be removed if he was incapacitated or becomes incapacitated at the time of his appointment [12] or if he fails to satisfactorily perform any duty imposed on him by or under the Act or to comply with any lawful request of the Master of the High Court.[13] Lastly, an executor may be removed where he applies to the Master of the High Court to be released from office in writing.[14]
Section 54 of the Act therefore makes it clear that the removal of an executor is an exceptional remedy, reserved for narrow circumstances where the continued appointment of the executor is demonstrably incompatible with the proper administration of the estate.
In Nieman v Oliver and Others[15], an application was made to court seeking the removal of a testamentary executor based on section 54(1)(a)(v) of the Act.[16] The court confirmed that executors are removed only in circumstances where continued administration would undermine or materially compromise the estate, rather than based on mere hostility and/or personal grievances between the executor and the relevant parties concerned.
Furthermore, in Letterstedt v Broers,[17] the court confirmed that the test for the removal of an executor is whether the continuance of the executor’s position in office will prejudicially affect the welfare of the estate placed in their care.
Considering the above, it is clear that mere hostility between the executor and interested parties, which does not affect the independent administration of the estate, will not be sufficient grounds for removal. In practice, requests and applications for the removal of an executor are often based on personal grievances alone.
Conclusion
Disputes regarding the conduct of an executor can significantly delay the administration of an estate or could potentially lead to costly litigation. The removal of an executor is therefore generally reserved for circumstances where the proper administration of the estate is at risk. Careful consideration should accordingly be given when appointing an executor, such as selecting an independent, impartial and trustworthy individual, ultimately ensuring that the deceased estate is administered in good faith.
[1] Segal v Segal 1979 (1) SA 503 (C). [2] Act 66 of 1965. [3] Section 54(1)(a)(ii). [4] Section 54(1)(a)(iii). [5] Section 54(1)(a)(iv). [6] Section 54(1)(a)(v). [7] Section 54(1)(b)(i). [8] Section 54(1)(b)(ii). [9] Resolve Corporate and Legal Newsletter ‘Bond of Security’ (13 June 2025) available at https://www.rslv.co.za/newsletters/2025/bond-of-security/ (accessed on 10 March 2025). [10] Section 54(1)(b)(iii). [11] Cilliers, P.H. ‘Meyerowitz on Administration of Estates and their Taxation’, 2025 ed. (Juta) 130. [12] Section 54(1)(b)(iv). [13] Section 54(1)(b)(v). [14] Section 54(1)(b)(vi). [15] Nieman v Olivier and Others (4921/2024) [2026] ZANWHC 30 (16 February 2026). [16] An executor may be removed where the Court is satisfied that it is undesirable for such an executor to act in such capacity of the estate concerned. [17] Letterstedt v Broers 9 AC 370, read with Cilliers, P.H. ‘Meyerowitz on Administration of Estates and their Taxation’, 2025 ed. (Juta) 131.By Robyn Siljeur
Associate at Adriaans Attorneys
While every reasonable effort is taken to ensure the accuracy and soundness of the contents of this publication, neither writers of the articles nor the publisher will bear any responsibility for the consequences of any actions based on information or recommendations contained herein. Our material is for informational purposes and should not be construed as legal advice.
Add a Comment