Primary briefing · Gazette
medium impact 54399 · 7289 · 2026-03-23
Living annuity prescribed amount raised to R150,000 from 1 March 2026
Effective from
01 Mar 2026
Government Notice 7289 withdraws all previous notices under paragraph (c) of the definition of 'living annuity' in section 1(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1962, and prescribes the new threshold amount as R150,000. The notice was gazetted on 23 March 2026 but takes effect from 1 March 2026, meaning the change is already operative. Retirement fund administrators, life insurers, and financial advisors must ensure that living annuity products and client advice reflect the updated amount.
Who is affected
Retirement fund administratorsLife insurers offering living annuitiesFinancial advisors and wealth plannersIndividual taxpayers holding or considering living annuities What this means for practitioners
Verify that all living annuity product documentation and systems reflect the R150,000 prescribed amount with effect from 1 March 2026.
Update client-facing advice and compliance checklists to reference the new threshold.
Confirm that prior notices under the same provision are treated as withdrawn from 1 March 2026.
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact Supreme Court of Appeal · 2026-03-23
Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Another v AfriForum NPC
AfriForum requested access under PAIA to Eskom's active coal and diesel supply contracts. Eskom refused, citing commercial sensitivity under sections 36 and 42 of PAIA. The High Court ordered disclosure; Eskom appealed to the SCA.
The court held: The SCA dismissed the appeal. Applying the Transnet test to sections 42(3)(b)/(c) and 36(1)(b)/(c), the Court held that Eskom provided no factual basis showing disclosure would likely cause harm to its commercial or financial interests or those of third parties. The default under section 11 of PAIA is that a public body must provide requested information, and general allegations of commercial sensitivity — contradicted by the public nature of coal pricing and competitive tender procurement — do not meet the standard for refusal. The Court also held that general allegations of corruption do not satisfy the section 46 public interest override without evidence specific to the contracts sought.
Legal impact: Confirms at SCA level that public bodies, particularly SOCs, cannot rely on unsupported commercial-sensitivity claims to refuse PAIA requests. Reinforces the Transnet test as the governing standard for evaluating refusal grounds under both sections 36 and 42. Practitioners advising SOCs and their commercial counterparties should treat open-tender procurement information as presumptively disclosable and ensure that any refusal is supported by concrete factual evidence of likely harm, not bare assertions.
Who is affected
State-owned companies and public bodiesIn-house counsel and information officers at public entitiesCoal and diesel suppliers to public entitiesCivil society organisations making PAIA requestsAdministrative law and public procurement practitioners What this means for practitioners
SOC and public-body information officers must ensure PAIA refusals are supported by specific factual evidence of likely harm, not generic commercial-sensitivity assertions.
Suppliers to public entities should review contract confidentiality expectations in light of the presumption of disclosure for open-tender procurement.
Practitioners advising on PAIA responses should apply the Transnet test rigorously and document the factual basis for any refusal.