Mental health conditions are increasing worldwide. According to the World Health Organisation, 1 in every 8 people live with a mental disorder. In recent years, there has been an increase in the awareness of the vulnerabilities of mentally incapacitated individuals, including those diagnosed with Dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. This has led to a corresponding increase in the number of curators appointed by the Court, with the aim of protecting the interests of such individuals. 

The role of a curator

A curator is defined as a person who is appointed by a Court with the intent of managing inter alia the property and financial affairs of another person, who is not capable of managing their affairs on their own. The appointment of a curator is a serious step and should only be considered as a last resort once all other less restrictive remedies have been exhausted. 

The appointed curator is a natural person, who can be a trusted relative of the patient or someone of a legal nature and background who is independent and able to make decisions in the interest of the patient. The role of a curator, depending on the type of curator that is appointed, includes, but is not limited to:

  • Collecting information about the mentally incapacitated individual’s assets and liabilities; 
  • Taking control of the mentally incapacitated individual’s property; 
  • Managing the mentally incapacitated individual’s financial affairs; 
  • Acting on behalf of the mentally incapacitated individual in contractual and other dealings; 
  • Bringing or defending legal proceedings on behalf of the mentally incapacitated individual; and 
  • Making decisions about the care and daily needs of the mentally incapacitated individual. 

Appointing a curator

A High Court is the only Court authorised to order the appointment of a curator, and will appoint a curator in terms of the provisions of Rule 57 of the Uniform Rules of Court. The application must be made by someone interested in the welfare of the mentally incapacitated individual, such as a family member, friend, carer or doctor. There are three types of curators for which a person can apply:

  • Curator ad litem, which is a curator that is appointed to litigate on behalf of the patient during legal proceedings;
  • Curator ad personae, which is a curator that is appointed to oversee the patient’s daily living needs; and
  • Curator Bonis, which is a curator that is appointed to protect the patient’s property and financial interests.

There are strict requirements that need to be met when bringing an application of this nature, and a Court will make an order appointing a curator if the Court is satisfied that:

  • The mental capacity of the proposed patient has been impaired or lost; 
  • As a result of that impairment or loss, it would be detrimental to the welfare of the proposed patient for them to manage their own property or financial affairs; and 
  • An order appointing a curator would likely benefit the proposed patient.

Although a curator has wide-ranging powers, they must always act in the best interests of the patient. The Mental Health Care Act (2002) protects the rights of mental health care users in South Africa and ensures that they receive humane treatment. The Act also gives mental health care users the right to dignity, privacy, and freedom from exploitation. It also gives them the right to information about their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options; and allows them to refuse treatment if they so choose.

It is worth noting that the Mental Health Care Act also provides, under section 60, for the appointment of an administrator by the Master of the High Court to manage the property of a mentally ill person or a person with a severe or profound intellectual disability. This is often a more accessible and less costly route than a High Court curatorship. A common misconception is that the Master may only act where the patient’s assets are worth less than R200 000 or annual income is below R24 000. In fact those thresholds determine the procedure rather than the Master’s jurisdiction: below them the Master may appoint an administrator on a streamlined basis under section 60(4), while above them the Master must first appoint an investigator under section 60(5) — usually a social worker or similar qualified person, who reports within 60 days and whose fee is capped at R15 000 — before appointing an administrator. A High Court curatorship under Rule 57 of the Uniform Rules of Court remains an alternative, and is generally reserved for more complex matters or where wider powers are needed. The full Act is available on the South African Government website.

South Africa does not currently recognise an enduring power of attorney. This means that a general power of attorney automatically lapses once the grantor becomes mentally incapacitated, making the appointment of a curator all the more important for forward planning. Where an incapacitated individual has a trust in place, the trustees may continue to manage trust assets, but a curator will still be needed to manage the individual’s personal affairs.

The role of curators in relation to mental incapacity is an important one which has come into sharp focus in recent years. Courts often appoint curators to take control of an incapacitated individual’s property and financial affairs and to make decisions about their care and daily needs. The management of a mentally incapacitated individual’s estate shares some procedural similarities with the administration of a deceased estate, in that both require careful oversight and accountability to the relevant court or master’s office. If you believe someone you know may benefit from such an appointment, book an appointment with our legal team to discuss your options.

Reviewed 16 June 2026 — Clarified the administrator route under section 60 of the Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002: the R200 000 asset and R24 000 income thresholds determine procedure, not the Master’s jurisdiction, and above them the Master may still appoint an administrator after first appointing an investigator under section 60(5), rather than a High Court curatorship being the only option.