What happened
Mr Herselman was sequestrated in December 2013 and the Master appointed two co-trustees, one of them a director of an attorneys' firm, Matsepes Inc. Mr Senekal was a fellow director of that firm. The creditors resolved that attorneys could be appointed to interrogate the insolvent, but that the costs of the interrogation would not be costs of administration. One creditor, Farmsecure, financed the interrogation on the footing that it would bear its costs and take its proceeds.
Mr Senekal did the interrogation and the recovery work as a director of Matsepes Inc. He left in October 2017 and registered his own firm, FJ Senekal Inc. In December 2019 and February 2020 the new firm invoiced the estate for work going back to November 2013, most of it done before the firm existed.
On the Master's direction the trustees put those fees into an account as costs of administration, with the shortfall to be met by a contribution from Farmsecure alone. Standard Bank, not asked to contribute, did not object, and the Master confirmed that account in September 2021. Farmsecure was by then in liquidation. Senekal Inc sued the trustees; the matter settled and was made an order of court in October 2022, directing the trustees to collect contributions from creditors liable under the Act after taxation and the statutory procedure for amending an account. The amended account of February 2023 called on Standard Bank for R1 085 723.12. The bank objected, the Master dismissed the objections, and the High Court set the Master's decision aside. Senekal Inc appealed.
What the court held
The Supreme Court of Appeal reinstated the appeal, which had lapsed because the record was lodged late, and then dismissed it with costs: FJ Senekal Inc v The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others [2026] ZASCA 137, 5 October 2026.
On the account. Section 111(1) of the Insolvency Act lets any interested person object to an account before it is confirmed, and the February 2023 account was a new, unconfirmed account. Confirmation under section 112 is final only as to what the confirmed account decided and between the persons whose rights it determined. The June 2021 account decided nothing against Standard Bank. A creditor entitled to object to a contribution cannot be stopped from objecting to the charge that produced it.
On the settlement order. The October 2022 order did not decide which creditors were liable or that the fees were recoverable from the estate; by requiring the statutory amendment procedure it preserved the right to object. A settlement between a claimant and the trustees, even once made an order, cannot impose liability on creditors who were not parties or validate a charge the Act prohibits. The bank's objection was not a collateral attack on the order.
On section 63(2). A trustee, the trustee's partner, and anyone who employs or is employed with the trustee may not take remuneration from the estate for services to it, beyond the trustee's own fee. Any claim for work Mr Senekal did while a director of Matsepes Inc belonged, if it existed at all, to Matsepes Inc. Senekal Inc could only have taken it by cession, none was in the record, and a cession would not have helped: Matsepes Inc was itself disentitled and had nothing to cede. The section prohibits entitlement, not merely double payment, and cannot be evaded by moving the claim to someone outside its reach. No dishonesty needs to be shown. And an incorporated law practice is the statutory equivalent of a partnership, so the section reaches directors as it reaches partners.
On the interrogation costs. The creditors' own resolution excluded them from the costs of administration. Farmsecure's insolvency did not turn them into costs of sequestration for the general body of creditors under section 106.
Two further points. Section 63(2) would not apply to work Senekal Inc did after its incorporation under a proper mandate from the trustees, but the invoices did not separate the work and the record did not show a joint mandate; the amended account will lie open for inspection again. And a review under section 111(2)(a) is a wide remedy in which the court decides the matter afresh, so the High Court could uphold the objections itself rather than send them back to the Master.
What it means for your practice
This judgment speaks directly to attorneys who are appointed as trustees and liquidators, and to the firms they sit in.
The firm of a trustee cannot bill the estate. Not the partners, not the directors, not the employees. The section is about who is entitled, not about whether the estate is paying twice, and it does not require anyone to have acted dishonestly. A firm that has a director on the panel of trustees and does the estate's legal work on the side has a fee problem that no later invoice can cure.
Leaving the firm and re-invoicing does not work. The claim, if there ever was one, stayed with the old firm, and the old firm had nothing to cede. Any arrangement under which a departing director takes "his" estate work with him and bills it from a new letterhead is caught.
Incorporation is not a way around the section. The court read "partner" purposively to reach the directors of an incorporated practice. Firms that have relied on the corporate form to distance the trustee from the firm's fee should stop.
A confirmed account is final only for what it decided and against whom. A creditor that was not called on to contribute under one account has lost nothing when a later account calls on it. And a settlement with the trustees made an order of court does not bind creditors who were not before the court.
Keep the creditors' resolutions in front of you. Costs that the creditors excluded from the costs of administration stay excluded, whatever happens to the creditor that agreed to carry them.
What to do on your files
If a director or partner of your firm is a trustee or liquidator in any estate, pull the fee notes your firm has rendered to that estate and test each against section 63(2). Work done under a proper, separate mandate from the trustees after the relevant person joined the firm is one thing; work for the estate in which your colleague is the trustee is another.
Where a former director has left with estate work, check that no invoice has been issued, or is about to be issued, in a new firm's name for work done at yours. The judgment says there is nothing to cede.
If you act for a creditor in an estate where an amended account has appeared with a contribution against your client, object. The previous account's confirmation does not close the door, and the settlement order that produced the amended account does not either.
The judgment was handed down on 5 October 2026. This note is drawn from the Supreme Court of Appeal's own media summary, which does not form part of the judgment; read the judgment before relying on it.
Source: FJ Senekal Inc v The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (167/2025) [2026] ZASCA 137, Supreme Court of Appeal, 5 October 2026. The court's media summary: https://www.supremecourtofappeal.org.za/images/SCA2026-137ms.pdf