Question 3 (10) The court and the Master of the High Court can remove an executor from office under section 54 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 (the AEA). The grounds for the Master of High Court to remove an executor from office are stipulated under section 54(1)(b)(i) through to (vi). The following is stated in Section 54(2): Before removing an executor from his office under sub-paragraph (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the Master shall forward to him by registered post a notice setting forth the reasons for such removal, and informing him that he may apply to the Court within thirty days from the date of such notice for an order restraining the Master from removing him from his office. It is believed as well as argued by legal practitioners that the words "within thirty days from the date of such notice" in section 54(2) of the AEA are unconstitutional because they allow the Master of the High Court to restrict or even prevent an executor's access to the court, which is a fundamental human right protected by section 34 of the South African Constitution. 8 For example: If the notice was dated 5 September 2021, but it wasn't posted until 17 September 2021, 12 days have since lapsed from the original date on the notice. Let's assume it will only be received by the executor on 27 September 2021, it will be making it difficult for the executor to approach the court in a usual manner, forcing the executor to file an urgent application for an interim interdict regarding his/her removal as executor. It can be argued that the current wording of section 54(2) allows the Master to post the notice a day before the 30-day period for lodging an application expires, effectively making it impossible for an executor to file an application as required by section 54(2) to prevent their removal in a timely manner, rendering the constitutional protection/s afforded to executors null and void. If the provision's wording were changed to say "within thirty days from the date of delivery of such notice" it is believed that the section would be constitutionally consistent and more in line with what the legislator intended it to be. Because the Master is required by section 54(2) of the Act to issue a notice by registered mail, and the courts have extensively dealt with the manner in which delivery of notices sent by registered mail in the context of other legislation, delivery of the notice can be easily proven. It is required from you: As an attorney and renowned researcher on the above-mentioned topic, you are asked by Mr. Hendrik Watson, who is one of the legal practitioners that argues and that is of the opinion that section 54(2) of the AEA are unconstitutional, to do an opinion. Your main focus will be on the possible implications for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on the current wording of Section 54(2) of the AEA and what the possible consequences will be in the event of amendment of such. Note: DO NOT merely state what the section says and do not only give a summary of the above mentioned, as this is already known. You must write an OPINION to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (as stipulated above). An opinion should contain an introduction, make sure that you state key points clearly presented, also make sure that the points that are made are systematically backed by facts/evidence/case law and quotations and references to other works should be accurately cited. An opinion also includes assumptions, your opinion of the subject matter based on the assumptions and current case law and/or legislation, possible reservations that you might have on the matter and a conclusion. It is also expected for you to do your own research on a legal opinion and the format thereof. Also, please note: You will be given marks for the correct style of referencing as well as the general presentation of your opinion. Question 3 (10) The court and the Master of the High Court can remove an executor from office under section 54 of the Administration of Estates Act 66 of 1965 (the AEA). The grounds for the Master of High Court to remove an executor from office are stipulated under section 54(1)(b)(i) through to (vi). The following is stated in Section 54(2): Before removing an executor from his office under sub-paragraph (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1), the Master shall forward to him by registered post a notice setting forth the reasons for such removal, and informing him that he may apply to the Court within thirty days from the date of such notice for an order restraining the Master from removing him from his office. It is believed as well as argued by legal practitioners that the words "within thirty days from the date of such notice" in section 54(2) of the AEA are unconstitutional because they allow the Master of the High Court to restrict or even prevent an executor's access to the court, which is a fundamental human right protected by section 34 of the South African Constitution. 8 For example: If the notice was dated 5 September 2021, but it wasn't posted until 17 September 2021, 12 days have since lapsed from the original date on the notice. Let's assume it will only be received by the executor on 27 September 2021, it will be making it difficult for the executor to approach the court in a usual manner, forcing the executor to file an urgent application for an interim interdict regarding his/her removal as executor. It can be argued that the current wording of section 54(2) allows the Master to post the notice a day before the 30-day period for lodging an application expires, effectively making it impossible for an executor to file an application as required by section 54(2) to prevent their removal in a timely manner, rendering the constitutional protection/s afforded to executors null and void. If the provision's wording were changed to say "within thirty days from the date of delivery of such notice" it is believed that the section would be constitutionally consistent and more in line with what the legislator intended it to be. Because the Master is required by section 54(2) of the Act to issue a notice by registered mail, and the courts have extensively dealt with the manner in which delivery of notices sent by registered mail in the context of other legislation, delivery of the notice can be easily proven. It is required from you: As an attorney and renowned researcher on the above-mentioned topic, you are asked by Mr. Hendrik Watson, who is one of the legal practitioners that argues and that is of the opinion that section 54(2) of the AEA are unconstitutional, to do an opinion. Your main focus will be on the possible implications for the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development on the current wording of Section 54(2) of the AEA and what the possible consequences will be in the event of amendment of such. Note: DO NOT merely state what the section says and do not only give a summary of the above mentioned, as this is already known. You must write an OPINION to the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (as stipulated above). An opinion should contain an introduction, make sure that you state key points clearly presented, also make sure that the points that are made are systematically backed by facts/evidence/case law and quotations and references to other works should be accurately cited. An opinion also includes assumptions, your opinion of the subject matter based on the assumptions and current case law and/or legislation, possible reservations that you might have on the matter and a conclusion. It is also expected for you to do your own research on a legal opinion and the format thereof. Also, please note: You will be given marks for the correct style of referencing as well as the general presentation of your opinion