Question
I am currently abroad and need to sign documents that are to be used in RSA. How do I go about this to ensure the documents are accepted in RSA?

Answer
Because these documents are not being signed in SA, Rule 63 of the Uniform Rules of the High Court (promulgated under the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act 107 of 1985, with the High Court itself now constituted under the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, which repealed the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959) prescribes the formalities that would apply for the documents to be acceptable for use within the republic and the Deeds Office (see our conveyancing guide for more on the registration process). The origin of the document/s needs to be authenticated or legalised by a competent authority.

The first question that needs to be asked is: what is the country (origin)  from which you will be signing the documents?  The procedure as stipulated in Rule 63 applies to any foreign country, whereas, to follow the Hague Convention procedure, only member states (i.e. countries that have signed the Hague Convention) can apply this procedure (i.e. both the country from which the document emanates and the country in which it will be used must be members).

If the country in which you are signing the document forms part of the Hague Convention, you have the option of either the authentication procedure in Rule 63(2) OR the Hague Convention Apostille, which Rule 63(2A) expressly recognises.

Rule 63 prescribes that the document must be signed as follows:

  1. by the signatories; and
  2. Authentication of the document by means of a certificate attached to the document, which certificate must be issued and signed by; and bearing the seal of office of, any of the following:
  • The head of the South African diplomatic or consular mission; or
  • a person in the administrative or professional division of the public service serving at a South African diplomatic, consular or trade office abroad; or
  • a consul-general, consul, vice-consul or consular agent of the United Kingdom, any other person acting in any of those capacities, or a pro-consul of the United Kingdom; or
  • any Government authority of such country charged with the authentication of documents under the law of such country; or
  • any person in that foreign country who is shown, by a certificate of any of the persons listed above or of any diplomatic or consular officer of that foreign country in South Africa, to be duly authorised to authenticate the document under the law of that foreign country; or
  • in the case of a document executed by a person on active service, a commissioned officer of the South African Defence Force (Rule 63(2)(f)).

If the person authenticating the document has no seal of office, he or she must certify this on the document under his or her signature (Rule 63(3)). In addition, Rule 63(4) allows any court of law or public office to accept a document as sufficiently authenticated if it is shown to its satisfaction that the document was actually signed by the person who purports to have signed it. Note also that the definition of “document” in Rule 63(1) excludes an affidavit or solemn or attested declaration purporting to have been made before an officer prescribed by section 8 of the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963.

High Court Rule 63(2)(e) provides an alternative procedure but only for the following specified countries: Zimbabwe, Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), Lesotho, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Botswana. The procedure to be followed in this instance is that the signatories must sign the document, and a notary public practising in such country must identify the signatories, sign the document and affix his/her seal thereto.

Where the country in which the document is signed is a member of the Hague Apostille Convention of 5 October 1961, the simplified Apostille procedure may be followed instead of the Rule 63(2) procedure: Rule 63(2A), inserted with effect from 12 March 2010, provides that any document authenticated in accordance with the Hague Convention is deemed to be sufficiently authenticated for use in South Africa where it emanates from a country that is a party to the Convention. The Hague Convention abolishes the requirement of diplomatic or consular legalisation between member states (articles 2 and 3) and replaces it with a single certificate, called an Apostille, issued by the competent authority designated by the country in which the document is executed (article 6).

In practical terms, where the document is signed in a Hague member state for use in South Africa:

  1. The document is signed by the signatories (typically before, or attested by, a notary public in the country of origin); and
  2. An Apostille certificate in the form prescribed by the annex to the Hague Convention is then issued and affixed to the document by the competent authority of the country of origin – for example, the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FCDO) Legalisation Office in the United Kingdom, the U.S. Department of State (or the relevant State Secretary’s office) in the United States, or each country’s designated apostille authority. South Africa has acceded to the Convention, and apostilles issued by the competent authority of any other member state will be accepted in the High Court and the Deeds Registry without further consular authentication.

Conversely, for documents signed in South Africa that need to be used abroad in another Hague member state, the apostille is issued by one of South Africa’s designated competent authorities. As listed by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), these are the Director-General: International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO), any registrar or assistant registrar of the High Court (listed under its former name, the Supreme Court), any magistrate or additional magistrate, and any person designated by the Director-General: Justice. In practice, DIRCO’s Legalisation Section deals with public documents such as civic documents issued by the Department of Home Affairs and SAPS clearance certificates, while notarised documents are taken to the Registrar of the High Court in the same jurisdiction as the notary, who verifies the notary’s signature and affixes the apostille. DIRCO’s Legalisation Section in Pretoria now works on online bookings only: from 1 September 2026 its walk-in service was discontinued and the number of booking slots was increased to 80.

For more on property transactions requiring authenticated documents, see our articles on navigating property law for first-time buyers and common pitfalls to avoid during conveyancing.

Updated 5 May 2026 – Corrected the statutory reference: the Uniform Rules of the High Court are made under the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act 107 of 1985, and the High Court is now constituted under the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 (which repealed the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959). The Hague Apostille Convention section was rewritten to correctly reflect that the apostille certificate is issued by the competent authority of the country of origin (in terms of articles 3 and 6 of the 1961 Convention), not by South African diplomatic or consular officials – a meaningful procedural distinction for documents executed in Hague member states. Added practical guidance on DIRCO and Registrar apostille routes for documents executed in South Africa.

Updated 27 October 2026 – Completed the list of persons who may authenticate a document under Rule 63(2) of the Uniform Rules and added Rule 63(2A), (3), (4) and the Rule 63(1) exclusion for affidavits made before section 8 officers under the Justices of the Peace and Commissioners of Oaths Act 16 of 1963. Corrected the Hague Convention article reference and the list of South Africa’s apostille authorities (which includes magistrates), and updated the DIRCO guidance to reflect its online booking-only procedure from 1 September 2026.