Search legal guides

Search MJ Kotze Inc legal guides and articles

Corporate & Companies

Founder Vesting Agreement in South Africa

Reverse-vesting that protects the cap table — a one-year cliff then monthly vesting, good-leaver and bad-leaver treatment, and a repurchase right that holds up under South African company law and the law of contract.

Written by

Martin Kotze

Attorney, Conveyancer & Notary Public

Last reviewed:

Quick answer

What is a founder vesting agreement?

A founder vesting agreement — often called founder vesting or reverse vesting — is a contract in which the founders of a startup agree that their shares are earned over time, rather than owned outright from day one. Each founder is issued the full block of shares immediately and is registered as the holder, but the company or the other founders retain a repurchase right over the portion that has not yet vested. As the founder keeps working in the business, shares vest and fall out of the repurchase right; if the founder leaves early, the unvested shares can be bought back, usually at the nominal or original issue price. A typical schedule is a one-year cliff — nothing vests for the first twelve months, then a quarter vests in one go — followed by monthly vesting across a total of three to four years. Vesting can also be tied to milestones (a funding round, a product launch, a revenue target) instead of, or alongside, time. The mechanism is called reverse vesting because the founder starts as full owner and gradually loses the company’s right to claw the shares back — the opposite of an employee share option that is granted with nothing and built up. The terms live across three documents that must agree with one another: the founder vesting agreement (or a vesting schedule in the share subscription agreement), the company’s Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI), and the shareholders agreement.

Is a founder vesting agreement enforceable in South Africa?

Yes. A founder vesting agreement is enforceable in South Africa as a valid contract, provided it meets the ordinary requirements of contract — consensus, lawful purpose, certainty, and possibility of performance — and its terms are not contrary to public policy. South African courts respect freely-agreed bargains: under the Constitutional Court’s decision in Beadica 231 CC v Trustees, Oregon Trust [2020] ZACC 13, a court will decline to enforce a contractual term on public-policy grounds only “sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases”, because the sanctity of contract — pacta sunt servanda — is central to the constitutional order. A precise, reasonable repurchase clause that buys back unvested shares at a defined price when a founder leaves early is therefore reliably enforced; an oppressive or penal forfeiture, by contrast, is more vulnerable to challenge. The mechanics must also be built to comply with the Companies Act 71 of 2008. Shares must be issued for adequate consideration, the value of which is determined by the board (s 40). Where the company itself buys back unvested shares, that is a reacquisition of its own shares under s 48: the board must apply the solvency-and-liquidity test (s 46, read with s 4) before the repurchase, and — following the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024, in force from 27 December 2024 — a special resolution of shareholders is now generally also required unless the buy-back is a pro-rata offer to all shareholders or is effected on a stock exchange. (The same amendments removed the old entanglement with the s 114/s 115 scheme-of-arrangement procedure for buy-backs of more than 5% of a class.) Because those gates can block or delay a company buy-back at exactly the moment it is needed, reverse vesting is frequently structured instead as a repurchase by the co-founders — a transfer between shareholders, which does not engage s 46/s 48 at all — or as a company repurchase expressly made conditional on the board passing the solvency-and-liquidity test and the shareholders passing any required special resolution at the time. Either way, the rights are framed by the MOI and the shareholders agreement, and the repurchase must be recorded in the company’s securities register to take effect against the company and third parties.
Shares may only be issued for adequate consideration, the value of which is determined by the board (s 40). A company may acquire its own shares only if, having regard to the acquisition, it satisfies the solvency and liquidity test set out in s 4 (s 46) and complies with the requirements governing the acquisition of its own shares (s 48) — and, following the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (in force 27 December 2024), a buy-back generally also requires a special resolution of shareholders unless made pro rata to all shareholders or on a stock exchange. A company buy-back of unvested founder shares is subject to those statutory gates.
Companies Act 71 of 2008, ss 40, 46 & 48
A court will use the power to invalidate a contract or not to enforce it, sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases in which harm to the public is substantially incontestable … The protection of the sanctity of contracts is thus essential to the achievement of the constitutional vision of our society. Indeed, our constitutional project will be imperilled if courts denude the principle of pacta sunt servanda.
Beadica 231 CC and Others v Trustees, Oregon Trust and Others (CCT109/19) [2020] ZACC 13; 2020 (5) SA 247 (CC)

When you need a Founder Vesting

  • When two or more co-founders incorporate a startup together and want to make sure that whoever stays and builds the business keeps their equity — and whoever walks away early does not leave with a large, unearned shareholding.
  • Before or as part of a seed or venture-capital round: investors almost always require the founders to be on vesting (often resetting the clock to new vesting from completion) as a condition of investment, so the cap table is protected against a founder departure.
  • When issuing equity to an early joining founder, key hire, or technical co-founder who comes in after incorporation, so that their shares are earned over their commitment rather than granted outright.
  • When restructuring the founder shareholding after a co-founder has already left, or to fix a "dead equity" problem where someone holds a large stake but no longer contributes to the company.
  • Whenever the shareholders agreement or MOI is being drafted or amended, so that the vesting schedule, leaver provisions, and repurchase right are consistent across all the governing documents and the securities register.

What a Founder Vesting should contain

1

Vesting schedule, cliff and commencement

Set out exactly how and when shares vest — the total vesting period (commonly three to four years), a one-year cliff before any vesting occurs, and the vesting frequency after the cliff (usually monthly or quarterly). Fix the commencement date precisely (incorporation, the founder’s start date, or completion of an investment round). Certainty here is what makes the schedule enforceable and the repurchase calculation unambiguous.

2

Reverse-vesting repurchase mechanic

Record that the founder holds all shares from the outset, subject to a repurchase right (a call option) over the unvested portion. Specify who may exercise it (the company, the co-founders, or both in a stated order), the trigger (cessation of involvement), the repurchase price (typically the nominal or original issue price for unvested shares), and the window and process for exercising it. This is the engine of the agreement.

3

Good leaver vs bad leaver

Define which departures are "good leaver" (death, permanent disability, or termination without cause) and which are "bad leaver" (resignation without good reason, dismissal for cause, or breach), and treat them differently. A good leaver often keeps vested shares and may keep some accelerated vesting; a bad leaver may forfeit unvested shares at issue price and, in some deals, see even vested shares repurchased at a discount. Disproportionate, penal bad-leaver terms are the part most exposed to a public-policy challenge.

4

Acceleration on a sale or exit

Provide whether vesting accelerates if the company is sold or lists. A "single-trigger" accelerates on the change of control alone; a "double-trigger" accelerates only if the change of control is followed by the founder being terminated. Investors usually prefer double-trigger to keep founders incentivised through an acquisition, so state clearly which applies and to how much of the unvested equity.

5

Companies Act compliance for the buy-back

Build in the statutory gates. If the company itself repurchases, make the buy-back expressly conditional on the board resolving that the company satisfies the solvency-and-liquidity test (s 46), on compliance with the own-share acquisition requirements (s 48), and — since the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (in force 27 December 2024) — on the shareholders passing any required special resolution (a single-founder repurchase is not pro rata, so a special resolution will usually be needed). Many agreements instead route the repurchase to the co-founders as a share transfer between shareholders to avoid those gates entirely. Either way, confirm the original issue satisfied the adequate-consideration requirement (s 40).

6

Interface with the MOI and shareholders agreement

Tie the vesting terms back to the Memorandum of Incorporation and the shareholders agreement so they do not contradict. Pre-emption rights, transfer restrictions, drag-along and tag-along, and the share class rights in the MOI must accommodate the repurchase. Where the MOI and a shareholders agreement conflict, the Companies Act gives the MOI primacy, so the repurchase right must be permitted by, or written into, the MOI.

7

Recording the repurchase in the securities register

Specify how a repurchase is documented: cancellation or transfer of the unvested shares, an updated securities register reflecting the new holdings, and the corresponding board resolution. A repurchase only takes proper effect against the company and third parties once the register is updated, so the agreement should make updating the register a condition of, or immediate consequence of, the buy-back.

8

Treatment of dividends, voting and leaver IP

Clarify that, while unvested, the founder still votes and receives dividends as a registered holder unless the parties agree otherwise, and that on a leaver event those rights fall away with the repurchased shares. Tie in a confirmation that all intellectual property the founder created for the business is owned by the company, so a departing founder cannot leave with both unearned equity and the company’s core IP.

Founder reverse vesting vs employee share options vs a plain shareholders agreement

FeatureFounder reverse vestingEmployee share options (ESOP)Plain shareholders agreement
Who holds the shares nowFounder holds all shares from day oneEmployee holds an option, not shares, until exerciseEach shareholder holds their shares outright
What is "earned"The company’s right to claw shares back falls away over timeThe right to buy shares is built up over timeNothing is earned — ownership is fixed at the outset
Trigger on leavingUnvested shares repurchased, usually at issue priceUnvested options lapse; vested options may have a short exercise windowOften a buy-out at fair value, no automatic forfeiture
Companies Act touchpoints 40 issue, plus s 46/s 48 (and a special resolution since the 2024 amendments) if the company buys backs 40/s 41 on issue when options are exercisedTransfer and pre-emption framed by the MOI
Typical useCo-founders and key early founders in a startupEmployees and advisers below founder levelEstablished shareholders with settled equity

Common South African pitfalls

  • Penal or oppressive bad-leaver terms: a clause that strips a founder of even fully vested shares for nominal value on any departure can be attacked as contrary to public policy. Under Beadica that challenge succeeds only "sparingly", but a disproportionate, punitive forfeiture is exactly the kind of "clearest case" a court will refuse to enforce — keep the bad-leaver consequences proportionate to the conduct.
  • Missing the buy-back formalities on a company repurchase: if the company itself is the buyer, a repurchase of unvested shares is a reacquisition of its own shares and must satisfy s 46 (solvency and liquidity) and s 48 — and, since the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (in force 27 December 2024), a special resolution of shareholders is generally required too unless the buy-back is pro rata or on a stock exchange. A buy-back that ignores these steps is voidable and exposes directors to liability — many agreements route the repurchase to the co-founders instead to sidestep the gates.
  • Contradicting the MOI or shareholders agreement: vesting terms buried only in a side letter, that conflict with the MOI’s share rights, transfer restrictions or pre-emption provisions, can be unenforceable to the extent of the conflict, because the Companies Act gives the MOI primacy. The repurchase right must be permitted by, or written into, the MOI.
  • Never updating the securities register: agreeing a repurchase but failing to cancel or transfer the shares and update the securities register leaves the cap table legally wrong. The departed founder may remain the registered holder, with voting and dividend rights, until the register is corrected.
  • No clear commencement date or cliff definition: vague drafting on when vesting starts, what the cliff vests, or how monthly vesting rounds, makes the repurchase calculation uncertain and the clause harder to enforce. Tie vesting to a precise, objective date and a clear formula.
  • Issuing shares for no real consideration: s 40 requires shares to be issued for adequate consideration determined by the board. Founder shares issued for a nominal amount are usually fine if the board records that determination, but skipping the board’s consideration decision can undermine both the issue and the later repurchase price logic.

Frequently asked questions

Is founder vesting legally enforceable in South Africa?

Yes. A founder vesting agreement is enforceable as an ordinary contract, provided it meets the normal requirements of contract and is not contrary to public policy. South African courts uphold a clear, freely-agreed repurchase of unvested shares, and under Beadica 231 CC they refuse to enforce a contractual term only "sparingly, and only in the clearest of cases".

What is reverse vesting and how does it differ from an option?

In reverse vesting the founder is issued all their shares immediately and is the registered holder, but the company or co-founders can repurchase the unvested portion if the founder leaves early. An employee share option is the opposite: the holder has only a right to buy shares later and acquires them as they vest. Reverse vesting suits founders; options suit employees.

What is a typical vesting schedule and cliff for SA startups?

A common schedule is a one-year cliff followed by monthly vesting over three to four years. Nothing vests in the first twelve months; on the cliff date a quarter vests in one block; thereafter the remaining shares vest in equal monthly instalments. Vesting can also be tied to milestones such as a funding round or product launch.

Can the company itself buy back unvested founder shares?

It can, but a company repurchase is a reacquisition of its own shares: the board must satisfy the solvency-and-liquidity test in section 46 and comply with section 48, and since the Companies Amendment Act 16 of 2024 (in force 27 December 2024) a special resolution of shareholders is generally also required unless the buy-back is pro rata to all shareholders or on a stock exchange. Because a single-founder repurchase is not pro rata, it will usually need that special resolution — so many agreements instead route the repurchase to the co-founders as a transfer between shareholders, which does not engage sections 46 and 48 at all.

What is the difference between a good leaver and a bad leaver?

A "good leaver" — typically someone who dies, becomes permanently disabled, or is terminated without cause — usually keeps their vested shares and may keep some acceleration. A "bad leaver" — who resigns without good reason, is dismissed for cause, or breaches — usually forfeits unvested shares at issue price. Bad-leaver terms must stay proportionate, or they risk being unenforceable.

What is single-trigger versus double-trigger acceleration?

Acceleration brings unvested shares forward when the company is sold or lists. "Single-trigger" accelerates on the change of control alone. "Double-trigger" accelerates only if the change of control is followed by the founder being terminated. Investors usually prefer double-trigger so founders stay incentivised through an acquisition rather than walking away fully vested.

How is a founder repurchase recorded under the Companies Act?

The unvested shares are cancelled or transferred under a board resolution, and the company’s securities register is updated to reflect the new holdings. A repurchase only takes proper effect against the company and third parties once the register is corrected, so updating the securities register is an essential, not optional, step.

Why do investors require founders to be on a vesting schedule?

Investors fund the team as much as the idea, so they want to be sure founders stay and build the business. Vesting protects the cap table: if a founder leaves early, their unvested shares can be repurchased rather than leaving a large block of "dead equity" with someone who no longer contributes. Many rounds reset founders onto fresh vesting at completion.

Sources & authority

This guide is general information, not legal advice. It reflects the law as at June 2026.

Get your Founder Vesting reviewed or drafted

Upload an existing document for a fixed-fee review, or have a bespoke Founder Vesting drafted for your business — personally, by a senior corporate and commercial attorney. No obligation to proceed.

Review: Fixed fee from R8 325 (excl. VAT) · 48-hour turnaroundDraft: Fixed fee from R8 175 (excl. VAT)

For the businesses we act for

The Keystone Workspace

The attorney-designed platform the businesses we act for use to run their contracts, e-signatures and company secretarial work in one place.

Why you can trust this: Martin Kotze has been an admitted Attorney of the High Court of South Africa, registered Conveyancer, and Notary Public since 2014, practising from Pretoria. The firm is regulated by the Legal Practice Council under firm registration 17444.

This guide is general information, not legal advice for your specific matter.