https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/2749 2026-06-24T02:26:51Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32661 A critical evaluation of non-executive directors’ liability for breach and overreach in corporate governance duties in state-owned companies in South Africa Ntelamo, Ntelamo Section 77 of the Companies Act provides for the liability of directors and officers of a company in South Africa. The liability of directors must be understood in context, and as one which must be hinged on their conduct. The conduct of directors should be seen as aligning with or arising from other provisions in the Companies Act. In terms of section 66(1), a shift in corporate law in South Africa is evident. The shift is that directors have been given sweeping powers to use in controlling and managing a company. The powers directors have been given are admirable and significant in clarifying as to where directors stand in the corporate governance of the company. It is these powers and the duties contained in section 76(3) which point to the justifi-cation to hold directors of a company accountable for the way it is governed. For they are vested with the powers to govern the company. The thesis focused on the liability of non-executive directors in state-owned compa-nies (SOCs), for corporate governance breaches and overreach. SOCs are compa-nies incorporated under the Companies Act. As such SOCs are subject to regulation by the Companies Act, unless expressly exempt from some provisions. In addition to the Companies Act, SOCs may come into being through an enabling law in which provision may be made that such institutions be incorporated under the Companies Act as a company whose shares would be held by the State. In other cases, SOCs can be directly brought into life by incorporation under the Companies Act without any exclusive enabling law. SOCs are further regulated under the Public Finance Management Act, though mainly from a financial perspective. The Public Finance Management Act contains schedules classifying SOCs into certain categories. In this regard, some SOCs are major public entities. The National State Enterprises Bill has recently been tabled in Parliament and if enacted into law will cause inroads in exist-ing legislation applicable to SOCs. Amongst others, it will affect the composition of SOCs, as a holding company will be established, inevitably implying subsidiaries below it. It will also affect the appointment and composition of boards of directors. SOCs are organs of State which are placed within the overarching regulation and application of the Constitution. This is a significant placement especially when regard is paid to the Constitution as supreme law wherein which there is a Bill of Rights which determines its application to juristic persons as far as possible. Seen from this perspective, accountable governance provided for in the Constitution and which spe-cifically applies to SOCs as it applies to other institutions, buttresses the duties of directors, especially non-executive directors. Much has been said, and will still be said about SOCs, often in a negative light. There are many reasons for this. It is noteworthy that these are public entities. They play an important role in the improvement of public welfare. Many of these entities provide critical services that buttress massive industrial activities. If poorly governed, the brunt is excruciating on the public and private institutions, by extension, the South African economy. Non-executive directors play a significant role in mitigating this situation by ensuring effective corporate governance in SOCs. Serving on SOCs’ boards is precisely to engender and entrench a sustained tone of good corporate governance. The reality, however, has been somewhat the opposite of the expected. Non-executive directors are pivotal to the success of SOCs they serve given the scope of powers at their disposal to ensure good corporate governance in SOCs. Thus, it is imperative that the law provides for clear guidelines as to how non-execu-tive directors should fulfil their duties when serving on SOCs. It should also provide for liability against non-executive directors for breach and overreach in the perfor-mance of corporate governance duties in SOCs in South Africa. It is in this context that the thesis examines the most pertinent legal instruments, including codes of corporate governance in South Africa. The thesis also includes a legal comparative study with a view to enhance the South African position. The un-derlying aim was to examine the spectre of liability against non-executive directors in SOCs. Recommendations for improvements are made at the end of the thesis. Text in English 2026-04-01T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32569 A critical analasis of the development and efficacy of South Africa's cybersecurity laws in combating cybercrimes Khoza, Lucky Appreciate 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32500 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 https://ir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/32485 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