Primary briefing · Gazette
high impact 54468 · R. 7353 · 2026-04-10
Draft Certificate of Competency Regulations replace 1990 rules for engineers under OHS Act
Comment closes
09 Jul 2026
The Minister of Employment and Labour has published draft Regulations Concerning the Certificate of Competency, 2026, under section 43(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act 85 of 1993. The draft replaces the existing regulations published under GN R.533 of 16 March 1990 and governs the issuance, suspension, and cancellation of certificates of competency for mechanical and electrical engineers. Key changes include the establishment of a formal Commission of Examiners, a shift of qualifying examination administration to the Department of Higher Education and Training, and new candidate acceptance criteria including a minimum age of 25 and requisite practical experience. Upon promulgation, the 1990 regulations will be repealed. A 90-day public comment period runs from 10 April 2026, closing approximately 9 July 2026.
Who is affected
Employers required to employ certificated mechanical or electrical engineers under the OHS Act and General Machinery RegulationsMechanical and electrical engineers holding or seeking certificates of competencyEngineering firms, manufacturers, mining companies, and construction companiesHigher education and training institutions involved in engineering qualificationsOHS compliance practitioners What this means for practitioners
Submit written comments by approximately 9 July 2026 (90 days from 10 April 2026) to DraftComments.GCC@LABOUR.gov.za or by hand/post to the Director-General of the Department of Employment and Labour
Review new candidate acceptance criteria (minimum age 25, practical experience, academic requirements) and assess impact on workforce planning and recruitment pipelines
Note that holders of suspended or cancelled certificates must return them to the chief inspector within one month of notification under the new framework
Monitor promulgation timeline — the 1990 regulations remain in force until the new regulations are formally promulgated
Primary briefing · Judgment
high impact High Court (Gauteng Division, Pretoria) · 2026-04-10
Ex Parte Moorcroft
An insolvent individual applied for rehabilitation under section 124(3) of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 on the basis that no claims had been proven against the estate. The Master and provisional trustees supported the application, and no creditors opposed it. However, it was unclear whether a first meeting of creditors had ever been convened.
The court held: The court held that a meeting of creditors is the sine qua non for reliance on section 124(3). Although the provision does not contain express words requiring a creditors' meeting, it clearly presupposes that such a meeting was convened at which creditors had the opportunity to prove claims. Without that meeting, the statutory basis for asserting that no claims were proved simply does not arise. The court distinguished section 127A, which provides for automatic rehabilitation after 10 years without requiring a creditors' meeting, as the only route that dispenses with this prerequisite. The application was postponed to 10 June 2026 for the Master to file a supplementary report within 20 days addressing whether the first meeting was held, and to show cause why the Master should not bear wasted costs for non-disclosure on this point. The court emphasised that the Master's and trustees' support for rehabilitation does not substitute for the court's independent judicial discretion.
Legal impact: This reportable judgment develops the law on section 124(3) rehabilitation by establishing that a first meeting of creditors is an implied prerequisite, closing a potential gap that could have allowed insolvents to obtain rehabilitation after only six months without any creditors' meeting having been convened. It also reinforces the court's independent discretion in rehabilitation matters and signals potential cost consequences for the Master's office where reports are incomplete or misleading.
Who is affected
Insolvency practitioners and provisional trustees preparing rehabilitation applicationsAttorneys advising insolvent individuals on rehabilitation strategyThe Master of the High Court and staff responsible for rehabilitation reportsCreditors in insolvent estatesBanking and financial services institutions as creditors What this means for practitioners
Insolvency practitioners must verify that a first meeting of creditors was convened before bringing a s 124(3) rehabilitation application; applications without this prerequisite are likely to fail
Attorneys should review pending rehabilitation applications under s 124(3) to confirm compliance with this implied requirement
Where no first meeting has been held, consider whether s 127A (automatic rehabilitation after 10 years) is the appropriate alternative route
Note the court's willingness to impose cost orders on the Master for incomplete reports — ensure Master's reports address all statutory prerequisites