How long is a proxy valid for?

“I was recently appointed as a proxy to represent a shareholder at an upcoming shareholders meeting. Unfortunately, the meeting has been rescheduled two months later, and I was wondering if the proxy will still be valid then or would I need to have a new proxy issued by the shareholder for the meeting?”

It is common practice for shareholders to appoint a proxy to represent them when they, as shareholders, are not available, able or inclined to attend a shareholders’ meeting themselves. On receiving notice of a shareholders meeting, a shareholder can then decide how they want to exercise their voting rights at the upcoming meeting and appoint a proxy to attend the meeting and vote for them according to their instructions. 

Section 58 of the Companies Act 71 of 2008 (“Companies Act”) regulates the right of a shareholder to appoint a person to act as a proxy. It is important to note that section 58(1) specifically states that a shareholder of a company is entitled to “at any time” appoint any individual as a proxy to participate in and speak and vote at a shareholders meeting on behalf of that shareholder. Our courts have also confirmed that these provisions are unalterable and may not even be altered in the Memorandum of Incorporation of a company.

Section 58 of the Companies Act does however impose some time limitations on the validity of a proxy appointment:

  1. A proxy will fall away when it is revoked by the shareholder who gave it, either by sending a document revoking it to the company and the proxy, or by appointing someone else as proxy in the place of the first proxy.
  2. The proxy instrument itself may indicate how long it is valid for.
  3. If a proxy instrument is completed for a specific meeting, or if it invites shareholders to appoint a particular person as proxy, the proxy instrument signed and delivered by a shareholder in those circumstances will only be valid until the end of the meeting at which it was used.
  4. In all other cases, the proxy instrument is valid for one year from date of signature.

In your situation, it will be important that you assess the proxy instrument and determine whether there is any time limitation and/or whether the proxy has been provided for the specific shareholders meeting. If there is no time limitation or if the proxy is for the specific shareholders meeting that has been postponed, the proxy will in all probability not need to be replaced for the meeting. 

However, if in doubt, it may be prudent to obtain a new proxy from the shareholder confirming your status to act as proxy at the upcoming meeting rather than risk the proxy having lapsed.

September 14, 2021
Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

Checkmate for Pawn Agreements: How the Recent SCA Judgment Protects Consumers from Pawnbroker Profits

In a landmark judgment delivered on 9 April 2025, where VDT Attorneys acted on behalf of the National Credit Regulator, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal (the “SCA”) brought clarity to the rights and obligations of consumers and pawnbrokers when dealing with pawned goods. In the case of The Loan Company (Pty) Ltd v National Credit Regulator and Another (1104/2023) [2025] ZASCA 40, the SCA confirmed a critical principle, i.e. if a pawned asset is sold for more than the outstanding loan and lawful charges, the surplus must be refunded to the consumer. Pawnbrokers cannot lawfully keep the full sale proceeds. This ruling marks a major victory for consumer protection, reinforcing South Africa’s commitment to fairness in credit transactions.

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

Heritage Day: Reflections from a New Breed law firm

On 24 September, we pause to take time off to commemorate Heritage Day, a day enshrined in both our public calendar and the Constitution. A constitutional affirmation of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed as a nation. As a new breed law firm, we reflect on how the practice of law is intertwined with the heritage of the very people it serves.

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Treasury halts controversial tax proposal on preference shares

Due to the potential adverse investment impact and stakeholder concerns on the proposed amendment to the definition of “hybrid equity instrument” in the 2025 draft Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (“Bill”), the proposed amendment has been retracted. On 03 September, the National Treasury issued a media statement retracting the proposal to redefine hybrid equity instruments, which has been a relief to all stakeholders.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest