Section 15(7) of the Companies Act, 2008: Acta Non Sunt Servanda – How Far Does It Go?

by | Jan 10, 2026 | BTCLQ, BTCLQ V16 I4

Section 15(7) of the Companies Act, 2008: Acta Non Sunt Servanda – How Far Does It Go?

Authors: Matthew Blumberg SC and Tumelo Ntsewa

ISSN: 2219-1585
Affiliations: Member, Cape Bar
Source: Business Tax & Company Law Quarterly, Volume 16 Issue 4, 2025, p. 1 – 9

Abstract

Shareholders’ agreements are a common feature of limited liability trading and investing. That was the case under the Companies Act, 1973, and it remains the case under its successor, the Companies Act, 2008. Under the former, shareholders’ agreements generally took precedence over the company’s articles of association in cases of conflict. Under the latter, the position is different. This is captured in section 15(7) of the Companies Act, 2008 which provides that a shareholders’ agreement that is inconsistent with the company’s Memorandum of Incorporation is void to the extent of the inconsistency. A recent Western Cape High Court judgment dealing with section 15(7) provides an opportunity to take stock of the jurisprudence. An analysis of the case law and academic writing reveals the ambit and operation of section 15(7) to be more nuanced and complex than may at first blush appear to be the case. The exact extent to which section 15(7) marks a departure from the previous regime remains, in important respects, yet to be decided on an authoritative basis.

Reversing Leave to Appeal: Navigating Procedural Uncertainty in South African Tax Dispute Resolution

by | Jan 10, 2026 | BTCLQ, BTCLQ V16 I4

Reversing Leave to Appeal: Navigating Procedural Uncertainty in South African Tax Dispute Resolution

Authors: Bradely Khethwa and Des Kruger

ISSN: 2219-1585
Affiliations: Associate, Webber Wentzel Attorneys
Source: Business Tax & Company Law Quarterly, Volume 16 Issue 4, 2025, p. 10 – 15

Abstract

It is well established that the Tax Administration Act 28 of 2011 provides several avenues through which an aggrieved taxpayer may seek recourse before the tax court. However, a complex jurisdictional dilemma arises when SARS, having initially granted a taxpayer leave to appeal, subsequently contends that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This reversal not only undermines procedural certainty but also raises critical questions about the scope of the tax court’s authority and the integrity of the dispute resolution process under the Tax Administration Act. This article explores this legal uncertainty, examining its implications for taxpayers and the broader tax adjudication framework. This question will be explored in detail with a specific focus on the recent judgment delivered by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service v African Bank Limited (242/2024) [2025] ZASCA 101.

The Commercial Realities of Financial Assistance

by | Jan 10, 2026 | BTCLQ, BTCLQ V16 I4

The Commercial Realities of Financial Assistance

Author: Joseph R Tettey

ISSN: 2219-1585
Affiliations: LLB (Wits), LLM (Wits), MM (Wits); MCom (Taxation) and LLM (UJ); Principal Lead Counsel, ABSA Bank
Source: Business Tax & Company Law Quarterly, Volume 16 Issue 4, 2025, p. 16 – 30

Abstract

This article explores the concept of financial assistance under the Companies Act, focusing on sections 44 and 45, which aim to prevent abuse of control and protect minority shareholders and creditors. It traces the historical rationale for these provisions, rooted in public policy concerns, and examines their evolution from strict prohibitions to a more permissive framework subject to solvency, liquidity, and fairness requirements. The article incorporates economic principles such as information asymmetry and moral hazard, analyses judicial interpretations including the impoverishment test, and highlights recent legislative developments such as the carve-out for subsidiaries. The article concludes that determining whether financial assistance has been provided is a substantive legal inquiry guided by commercial realities, legislative intent, and case law, with non-compliance rendering transactions void and exposing directors to personal liability.