Newsroom

On 14 August 2026, the Competition Commission of South Africa (the “Commission”) published draft amendments to its Small Merger Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) for public comment. Although the amendments are relatively limited, they serve as an important reminder that a transaction which falls below the compulsory merger notification thresholds may still attract the Commission’s attention.

The Gauteng High Court’s decision in Oasas Consultants (Pty) Ltd v ARWYP Medical Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others provides useful judicial guidance on when a written shareholder resolution, commonly referred to as a round robin resolution, is adopted under section 60 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (the “Act”).

The Supreme Court of Appeal (“SCA”) judgment in Msibithi Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others v African Legend Investment (Pty) Ltd and Others is an important reminder that directors’ duties under the Companies Act (“Act”) may carry significant consequences. The case arose from a broader governance dispute involving African Legend Investments (Pty) Ltd and its subsidiary, Off the Shelf Investments 56 (RF) (Pty) Ltd, in the context of a commercial transaction and related shareholder tensions.

In today’s fast-paced and competitive business landscape, companies are built on the dedication, vision, and passion of its founders. However, ensuring that businesses remain sustainable and successful after their founders step down, poses a significant challenge. This is especially true in professional sectors including law, engineering, and auditing, where attracting and retaining top talent, as well as motivating younger professionals, is crucial for growth.

For many South African farming families, the ‘farm’ is both a business and a family asset. It may include land, shares in farming operation entities, equipment, livestock, and years of accumulated value. Yet, one aspect is often considered too late i.e. whether, upon estate administration, there will be sufficient liquidity to preserve the farming enterprise for the next generation.

On 29 January 2026, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition, published draft amendments to the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment (“B-BBEE”) Codes of Good Practice, for public comment. The policy intention is clear: the South African Government wants faster and more visible transformation, particularly for small black-owned businesses.

The fifth iteration of South Africa’s corporate governance benchmark, the King V Report on Corporate Governance for South Africa, 2025 (“King V”), was officially published on 31 October 2025 by the Institute of Directors in South Africa and the King Committee. King V replaces King IV and reflects nearly a decade of evolution in governance thinking, legislative reform and shifting stakeholder expectations.

On 27 January 2026, the Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition published draft amendments to South Africa’s merger thresholds under the Competition Act.

During December 2025 the South African Reserve Bank (“SARB”) released a statement confirming the discontinuance of publication of the Johannesburg Interbank Average Rate (“Jibar”), which has historically served as the primary interest rate benchmark for a wide range of commercial and financial transactions.

In the recent judgment of M & J Da Costa Brothers (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ivor Michael Karan 2025] ZAGPJHC 1191, the Gauteng High Court (the “Court”) revisited one of the oldest battlegrounds in commercial law — the tension between the sanctity of the written contract and the practical realities of business dealings.

A common assumption among taxpayers is that holding assets in a private company is generally more tax-efficient than holding them in a personal capacity. However, this assumption does not always hold true — particularly when the assets in question are personal-use assets.

In a fast-paced corporate environment directors of companies are frequently tasked with high-stakes decisions that demand sound judgment and careful consideration of the company’s best interests. In the event where a company suffers a loss stemming from a director’s decision, the question arises as to the potential liability of a director owing to an alleged breach of its fiduciary duties and the defence mechanism available to such director.