https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/2978 2026-06-19T18:30:01Z 2026-06-19T18:30:01Z Dzawoma, Innocent https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32500 2026-05-27T10:59:17Z 2025-11-25T00:00:00Z

An analysis of the business judgment rule under Section 76(4) of the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 Dzawoma, Innocent This study examines the relevance and reasons for the limited judicial application of the business judgment rule in section 76(4) of the Companies Act. The rule was introduced to shield directors from personal liability arising from honest decisions that harm the company. The study finds that the business judgment rule is relevant as it aligns with the purposes of the Companies Act such as promotion of entrepreneurship and good corporate governance. It further finds that the broad scope of the rule and the blending of the fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company with the duty of care, skill and diligence limit its application and consign it to legal uncertainty. The study makes several recommendations which include narrowing the definition of business judgment, specifying the scope of the business judgment rule and imposing the burden of proof on the plaintiff.

2025-11-25T00:00:00Z Odirachukwu, Stephen Mwim https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32485 2026-06-02T12:33:00Z 0025-04-30T00:00:00Z

The impact of South African copyright law on the rights of persons with disabilities with particular reference to the right of access to information in adapted format Odirachukwu, Stephen Mwim In Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others (CCT320/21) [2022] ZACC 33 (21 September 2022), the Constitutional Court declared the provisions of sections 6 and 7, read with section 23, of the Copyright Act 98 of 1978 unconstitutional to the extent that these provisions limit the right of person with print disabilities to access copies of copyright-protected works in accessible formats. In addition, instead of ordering the reading-in of section 19D, as the lower court did, the Constitutional Court ruled that the Copyright Act must be deemed to incorporate the section 13A exception, which forms part of the order of the court and remain in place for 24 months. In the next stage of this litigation, on 13 December 2024, the Constitutional Court issued an interim order deeming section 13A to be incorporated into the Copyright Act, pending final determination of the matter. The decision of the Constitutional Court in Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others not to rule in favour of reading in section 19D, as contemplated by the Copyright Amendment Bill [B13B-2017] (‘CAB’)1, indicates that the proposed section 19D does not yet comply with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, the international human rights treaties, and the international copyright instruments, particularly the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired or Otherwise Print Disabled, and the three-step test of the Berne Convention. The thesis critically analyses the Copyright Act, with particular reference to Bill 13F-2017, to determine the extent to which it complies with the provisions of the Constitution, the international human rights instruments (such as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities) as well as other international legal documents (particularly the three-step test and the Marrakesh Treaty). Though the Constitutional Court in Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others dealt with the provisions of Bill 13B-2017, this study focuses on the provisions of Bill 13F-2017 which was sent to the President for assent on 27 February 2024 and referred by him to the Constitutional Court on 10 October 2024 to rule on the constitutionality thereof.2 Also, the thesis was finalised for submission for examination shortly before Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2025] ZACC 9, wherein the Constitutional Court decided that s 19D of Bill 13F-2017 should be read into the Copyright Act. Although Bill 13F-2017 addresses some of the gaps in Bill 13B-2017, Bill 13F-2017 is still lacking in some aspects that make it incomplete for protecting and advancing the interest of persons with disabilities. The thesis also considers the specific copyright exceptions that South Africa needs to incorporate into its Copyright Act, in order to bridge the access gap between persons with disabilities and those without disabilities in relation to access to copyright-protected works. The thesis further examines the various obligations imposed by the Marrakesh Treaty, which are subject to the three-step test. It analyses the requirements of this test as contained in the relevant international legal instruments. It then investigates the obligations contained in the different international human rights treaties that are underpinned by the principle of equality for all and the achievement of human freedom. It analyses the various constitutional obligations that require everyone to be treated equally, with respect and dignity, and without unfair discrimination. Finally, the thesis examines the extent to which the Copyright Act, through the adoption of the relevant provisions of the CAB under Bill 13F-2017, has met the various obligations. The thesis also surveys the corresponding provisions of the copyright law of two foreign jurisdictions: Australia and India. Both countries have dynamic and advanced systems of copyright law, and their drive and imagination in implementing the Marrakesh Treaty provide lessons and inspiration for South Africans to finish improving the Copyright Act to satisfy, and even transcend, the Marrakesh Treaty. The thesis shows that developing a copyright exception framework that is inclusive will address both the legal and technological constraints that hinder access to copyright-protected works for persons with disabilities, while balancing the rights of copyright holders and the interests of disabled persons. In line with the inclusive approach proposed by researchers such as Ncube, Reid, and Oriakhogba, this thesis focuses on persons with different forms of disability where such conditions limit their ability to access copyright-protected materials. In Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others (CCT320/21) [2022] ZACC 33 (21 September 2022) het die Konstitusionele Hof die bepalings van artikels 6 en 7, saamgelees met artikel 23, van die Wet op Outeursreg, ongrondwetlik verklaar in soverre hierdie bepalings leesgestremde persone se reg op toegang tot kopieë van outeursregbeskermde werke in toeganklike formate beperk. Verder, eerder as om die inlees van artikel 19D te gelas, soos wat die laer hof gedoen het, het die Konstitusionele Hof beslis dat die Wet op Outeursreg geag moet word om die bepalings van die artikel 13A-uitsondering in te sluit, wat deel uitmaak van die hofbevel en vir ’n tydperk van 24 maande van krag bly. In die volgende fase van hierdie litigasie, op 13 Desember 2024, het die Konstitusionele Hof ’n tussentydse bevel uitgereik wat bepaal dat daar geag moet word dat die Wet op Outeursreg artikel 13A insluit, hangende finale uitsluitsel oor die aangeleentheid. Die besluit van die Konstitusionele Hof in Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others om nie die inlees van artikel 19D, soos voorgestel in die Wysigingswetsontwerp op Outeursreg [B 13B–2017] (“WoO”),3 te beveel nie, dui daarop dat die bepalings van artikel 19D nog nie voldoen aan die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996, verskeie internasionale menseregteverdrae, en die internasionale outeursreginstrumente nie, veral die Marrakesh Verdrag om Toegang tot Gepubliseerde Werke te Fasiliteer vir Mense wat Blind, Visueel of Andersins Leesgestremd Is, en die drie-stap-toets in die Bernse Konvensie vir die Beskerming van Literêre en Artistieke Werke. Die proefskrif ontleed die Wet op Outeursreg krities, met spesifieke verwysing na Wetsontwerp 13F-2017, om te bepaal in welke mate dié wet aan die bepalings van die Grondwet, internasionale mensereginstrumente (soos die Verenigde Nasies se Universele Verklaring van Menseregte en Konvensie oor die Regte van Persone met Gestremdhede), en ander internasionale regsbronne (in besonder gemelde drie-stap-toets en die Marrakesh-verdrag) voldoen. Alhoewel die Konstitutionele Hof in Blind SA v Minister of Trade, Industry and Competition and Others met die bepalings van Wetsontwerp 13B-2017 gehandel het, fokus hierdie studie op die bepalings van Wetsontwerp 13F-2017 wat op 27 Februarie 2024 na die President gestuur is vir instemming en op 10 Oktober 2024 deur hom na die Konstitusionele Hof verwys is om uitspraak oor die grondwetlikheid daarvan te lewer. Die proefskrif is verder vir eksaminering gefinaliseer kort voor Blind SA v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others [2025] ZACC 9, waarin die Konstitusionele Hof besluit het dat art 19D van Wetsontwerp 13F-2017 in die Wet op Outeursreg ingelees moet word. Alhoewel Wetsontwerp 13F-2017 sommige van die gapings in Wetsontwerp 13B-2017 aanspreek, skiet Wetsontwerp 13F-2017 steeds tekort in sekere aspekte wat dit onvolledig maak vir die beskerming en bevordering van die belange van persone met gestremdhede. Die proefskrif oorweeg ook die spesifieke uitsonderings op outeursreg wat die Wet op Outeursreg moet insluit om die toegangsgaping tussen persone met gestremdhede en dié sonder gestremdhede met betrekking tot toegang tot outeursregbeskermde werke te oorbrug. Die proefskrif ondersoek verder die verskeie verpligtinge wat deur die Marrakesh-verdrag opgelê word en wat aan die drie-stap-toets onderhewig is. Dit ontleed die vereistes van hierdie toets soos vervat in die relevante internasionale regsbronne. Daaropvolgend word die verpligtinge wat in die verskillende internasionale menseregteverdrae vervat is en wat geskoei is op die beginsels van gelykheid vir almal en die verwesenliking van menslike vryheid, ondersoek. Dit analiseer die verskeie grondwetlike verpligtinge wat vereis dat almal gelyk, met respek en waardigheid, en sonder onbillike diskriminasie behandel moet word. Laastens ondersoek die proefskrif die mate waarin die Wet op Outeursreg, indien die relevante bepalings van die WoO onder Wetsontwerp 13F-2017 regskrag sou kry, aan die verskeie verpligtinge sal voldoen. Die proefskrif ondersoek verder die ooreenstemmende bepalings van die outeursreg van twee ander regstelsels – Australië en Indië. Beide lande het dinamiese en gevorderde outeursregstelsels, en hulle dryfkrag en verbeelding in die implementering van die Marrakesh-verdrag bied lesse en inspirasie vir Suid-Afrikaners om die verbetering van die Wet op Outeursreg te voltooi ten einde die Marrakesh-verdrag na te volg en selfs te oortref. Die proefskrif toon aan dat die ontwikkeling van ’n inklusiewe outeursreguitsonderingsraamwerk beide die regs- en tegnologiese beperkings wat toegang tot outeursregbeskermde werke vir persone met gestremdhede belemmer, sal aanspreek, terwyl die regte van outeursreghouers en die belange van gestremde persone gebalanseer word. In ooreenstemming met die inklusiewe benadering wat deur navorsers soos Ncube, Reid, en Oriakhogba voorgestel word, fokus hierdie proefskrif op persone met verskillende vorme van gestremdheid waar sodanige toestande hulle vermoë om toegang tot outeursregbeskermde materiaal te verkry, beperk.

0025-04-30T00:00:00Z Makuyana, Tsanangurai https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32398 2026-04-29T09:47:20Z 2024-08-07T00:00:00Z

Selected legal aspects of money-laundering control in trade-finance instruments Makuyana, Tsanangurai The traditional perception that trade-finance instruments are less susceptible to the risk of money laundering has changed due to the increasing threat of trade-based money laundering (TBML). In the process of facilitating trade-finance transactions, financial institutions may be entrapped in the dangers of TBML and be abused for criminal gains. In this regard, the institutions play a significant role in ensuring that only legitimate trade is facilitated through trade finance without being tainted by TBML. Despite that, vulnerabilities for the vice have been discovered in the trade-finance sector. This study employs a macro-comparative approach in examining how selected jurisdictions respond to the problem of TBML in trade-finance instruments. It analyses the vulnerabilities of documentary credits, documentary collections, demand guarantees and standby letters of credit to the potential risk of TBML. The thesis compares the response of the South African AML regime with that of the English, the US and Singapore AML regimes to the threat of TBML in the selected trade-finance instruments. The study reveals, inter alia, that there is not much difference between the South African AML regime and the AML regimes of the comparative jurisdictions in terms of the legislative response to the challenge of TBML in trade-finance transactions. However, the difference is apparent when it comes to the varied institutional responses to the problem within the jurisdictions considered in this thesis. While South African AML authorities have not made any official pronouncement against TBML in trade finance, those from other comparative jurisdictions have done so. The latter have also gone a step further to produce best practice reports on TBML for banks and other financial institutions involved in trade-finance transactions to enable the institutions to prepare for the challenge. However, similar to the South African position, there has not been any legislative change in the comparative jurisdictions to provide for TBML in specific terms. This means that these jurisdictions also deal with TBML using current AML legislation, which was designed originally for cash-based money-laundering operations. Therefore, the institutions and laws under the South African AML regime are relevant in the combatting of TBML. However, they may require some modifications to appropriately counter the challenge. The study makes various policy and best practice recommendations to strengthen the South African AML regime against TBML in trade-finance transactions.

2024-08-07T00:00:00Z Jennifer Owusu-Akyaw https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32357 2026-06-16T16:32:55Z 2025-11-01T00:00:00Z

A comparative legal study of the derivative action in South Africa, Ghana and Australia Jennifer Owusu-Akyaw The derivative action, as practised in many jurisdictions worldwide, is a remedy by which a shareholder in a company (generally a minority shareholder) institutes legal action to protect the rights and interests of the company. Under the predominantly English law-based common law in South Africa, Ghana and Australia, the company is deemed a separate entity independent of all its stakeholders, which can sue and be sued in its corporate name. Decision-making within the company generally takes the form of a majority decision by the company’s shareholders. The minority shareholders are consequently subject to the decisions of the majority shareholders and the company’s directors. The courts are generally reluctant to interfere in the internal management of companies. This, therefore, offers restricted protection to the company and minority shareholder rights where the majority shareholders decline to act against the company’s wrongdoers on behalf of the company, or where the majority shareholders or directors are themselves the wrongdoers. The common-law derivative action is a remedy by which a shareholder in the company (generally a minority shareholder(s)) may institute legal proceedings to protect the rights and interests of the company. The common-law derivative action has several flaws. It has been plagued by uncertainty, procedural weaknesses, and the high cost of litigation. As a result, a number of leading jurisdictions, including South Africa, Ghana and Australia have revised their legal rules relating to the derivative action. Section 165 of the Companies Act 2008 is frequently referred to as South Africa’s statutory derivative action and has completely replaced the common-law derivative action and the derivative action under section 266 of the Companies Act 1973. Although there have been important court judgments clarifying the key features of section 165 of the Companies Act 2008, certain weaknesses can still be identified under the section. Ghana for a long time depended on the common-law derivative action with its attendant flaws, vagueness, procedural irregularities, and uncertainties. However, on 2 August 2019, the Companies Act 2019 was passed which specifically provides for a statutory derivative action in terms of sections 201 to 204. The Ghanaian statutory derivative action is relatively new in comparison with that of South Africa and Australia. Before 2000, the Australian derivative action had traditionally been enforced in terms of the common law. The Corporations Act 2001 in Part 2F.1A under sections 236 to 242 finally provided for a statutory derivative action in Australia. It came into force on 13 March 2000 through the promulgation of the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999 (CLERP Act 1999). This thesis examines the statutory derivative action under South African, Ghanaian and Australian company law. The thesis will highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the South African statutory derivation action in section 165 of the Companies Act 2008 in comparison with the strengths and weaknesses of section 201 of the Companies Act 2019 and sections 236 to 242 of the Corporations Act 2001. The purpose is to identify important lessons that South Africa, Ghana and Australia can learn from each other to resolve their weaknesses. The thesis provides recommendations for each of the three jurisdictions. The recommendations will be based on the important lessons that can be learned from the key features of the laws of each jurisdiction.; Die afgeleide aksie, soos dit in baie jurisdiksies wêreldwyd beoefen word, is 'n remedie waardeur 'n aandeelhouer in 'n maatskappy (gewoonlik 'n minderheidsaandeelhouer) regstappe instel om die regte en belange van die maatskappy te beskerm. Ingevolge die oorwegend Engelse regsgebaseerde gemenereg in Suid-Afrika, Ghana en Australië, word die maatskappy as 'n afsonderlike entiteit onafhanklik van al sy belanghebbendes beskou, wat in sy korporatiewe naam kan dagvaar en gedagvaar word. Besluitneming binne die maatskappy neem gewoonlik die vorm aan van 'n meerderheidsbesluit deur die maatskappy se aandeelhouers. Die minderheidsaandeelhouers is gevolglik onderhewig aan die besluite van die meerderheidsaandeelhouers en die maatskappy se direkteure. Die howe is oor die algemeen huiwerig om in te meng in die interne bestuur van maatskappye. Dit bied dus beperkte beskerming aan die maatskappy en minderheidsaandeelhouerregte waar die meerderheidsaandeelhouers weier om namens die maatskappy teen die maatskappy se oortreders op te tree, of waar die meerderheidsaandeelhouers of direkteure self die oortreders is. Die gemeenregtelike afgeleide aksie is 'n remedie waardeur 'n aandeelhouer in die maatskappy (gewoonlik 'n minderheidsaandeelhouer(s)) regstappe kan instel om die regte en belange van die maatskappy te beskerm. Die gemeenregtelike afgeleide aksie het verskeie gebreke. Dit word geteister deur onsekerheid, prosedurele swakhede en die hoë koste van litigasie. Gevolglik het 'n aantal toonaangewende jurisdiksies, insluitend Suid-Afrika, Ghana en Australië, hul regsreëls met betrekking tot die afgeleide aksie hersien. Artikel 165 van die Maatskappywet 2008 word gereeld na verwys as Suid-Afrika se statutêre afgeleide aksie en het die gemeenregtelike afgeleide aksie en die afgeleide aksie kragtens artikel 266 van die Maatskappywet 1973 heeltemal vervang. Alhoewel daar belangrike hofuitsprake was wat die belangrikste kenmerke van artikel 165 van die Maatskappywet 2008 verduidelik het, kan sekere swakhede steeds onder die artikel geïdentifiseer word. Ghana was lank afhanklik van die gemeenregtelike afgeleide aksie met sy gepaardgaande gebreke, vaagheid, prosedurele onreëlmatighede en onsekerhede. Maar, op 2 Augustus 2019 is die Maatskappywet 2019 aangeneem, wat spesifiek voorsiening maak vir 'n statutêre afgeleide aksie ingevolge artikels 201 tot 204. Die Ghanese statutêre afgeleide aksie is relatief nuut in vergelyking met dié van Suid-Afrika en Australië. Voor 2000 is die Australiese afgeleide aksie tradisioneel afgedwing ingevolge die gemenereg. Die Korporasiewet 2001 in Deel 2F.1A onder artikels 236 tot 242 het uiteindelik voorsiening gemaak vir 'n statutêre afgeleide aksie in Australië. Dit het op 13 Maart 2000 in werking getree deur die promulgering van die Korporatiewe Reg Ekonomiese Hervormingsprogramwet 1999 (CLERP-wet 1999). Hierdie tesis ondersoek die statutêre afgeleide aksie onder Suid-Afrikaanse, Ghanese en Australiese maatskappyreg. Die tesis sal die sterk- en swakpunte van die Suid-Afrikaanse statutêre afleidingsaksie in artikel 165 van die Maatskappywet 2008 uitlig in vergelyking met die sterk- en swakpunte van artikel 201 van die Maatskappywet 2019 en artikels 236 tot 242 van die Korporasiewet 2001. Die doel is om belangrike lesse te identifiseer wat Suid-Afrika, Ghana en Australië by mekaar kan leer om hul swakpunte op te los. Die tesis verskaf aanbevelings vir elk van die drie jurisdiksies. Die aanbevelings sal gebaseer wees op die belangrike lesse wat geleer kan word uit die sleutelkenmerke van die wette van elke jurisdiksie. Summary in English and Afrikaans

2025-11-01T00:00:00Z