CONTROL OF TRUSTEES

Generally, only the law and trust instrument can legally control a trustee. The trust instrument and the rules of equity guide trustees in the administration of trust. Trustees are not obliged to consult beneficiaries or consent to their wishes. In effect, beneficiaries have no right to interfere in the performance by trustees of their duties and powers.  In Re-Brockband (1948), all the beneficiaries being 'sui juris' teamed up with one of the trustees in whom appointment of their nominee as a new trustee is vested. The other trustees resisted the demand and the court refused to compel the recalcitrant trustee to concur in the appointment of the new trustee. 

A beneficiary who is absolutely entitled to a trust property and who is 'sui juris' can compel the trustees to vest the trust property in him even if the trust instrument contains provision to the contrary. By this, the trust is brought to an end . This is known as the rule in Saunders v Vautie. In this case,  a trustee was directed to accumulate the income on a legacy until a specified date. The court held that as soon as the beneficiary became of age, since he was eventually entitled to the income, he could call for the transfer to him of the same capital sum at any time. 

Where the property in question is personalty as it happened in Re-Marshall, the beneficiary who is 'sui juris' can demand for his share of the property. If however the property is real estate such demand would not be allowed since once shared, the real estate would not fetch its proper proportion of the proceeds of sale of the whole estate. 

Generally, the court has no power to vary a trust and also has no power to authorize a departure from the terms of the trust, except in a case of emergency in the management or administration of trust property or in order to salvage the property such as in executing essential repairs in the trust property.