---

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

LIMPOPO LOCAL DIVISION, THOHOYANDOU

 

CASE NO: 1640/2024

REPORTABLE: NO

OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO

REVISED: YES

DATE: 03/04/2025

SIGNATURE: TE MATUMBA, AJ

 

In the matter between:

 

GREATER GIYANI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	1ST APPLICANT
MAYOR OF GREATER GIYANI MUNICIPALITY CLLR. ZITHA THANDl	2ND APPLICANT
and
HASANI JOHN MALULEKE	1ST RESPONDENT
CHURCH FOOTBALL CLUB	2ND RESPONDENT
In re:
HASANI JOHN MALULEKE	1ST APPLICANT
CHURCH FOOTBALL CLUB	2ND APPLICANT
and
MAYOR OF GREATER GIYANI MUNICIPALITY CLLR. ZITHA THANDI	1ST RESPONDENT
GREATER GIYANI LOCAL MUNICIPALITY	2ND RESPONDENT
MESENYANI ADOLPH KHOSA	3RD RESPONDENT
PATRICK HLUNGWANI	4TH RESPONDENT
MALULEKE SIMON "MASHOBYE"	5TH RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION  GREATER GIYANI LOCAL FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION	6TH RESPONDENT
MEC FOR SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE  LIMPOPO PROVINCE	7TH RESPONDENT
MEC FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT LIMPOPO PROVINCE	8TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 1 CLLR. NGOBENI XIHLAMARISO LAIZA	9TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 2 CLLR. MONYIPOTE NEO STEVEN	10TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 3 CLLR. MAKAMU VONGANI SUDWELL	11TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 4 CLLR. MACHIPI MOLATA CEDRICK	12TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 5 CLLR. CHABALALA MIKATEKO CLASON	13TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 6 CLLR. HLONGWANI SIZEKA MACKSON	14TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 7 CLLR. NGUNYULE RIVALANI GIVEN	15TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 8 CLLR. MOKGOBI PHILLIP THOMANE	16TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 10 CLLR. RIKHOTSO THABO EPHRAIM	17TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 11 MALULEKE MSISINYANI RESPECT	18TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 12 CLLR. NKUNA TIYANI ETTIEN	19TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILOR FOR WARD 13 CLLR. SAMBO SHARON	20TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD-14 CLLR. MHLAWULE·SOYAPHI MACKSON	21ST RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 15 CLLR. MAHLAWULE SOYAPHI CALVIN	22ND RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 16 CLLR. SHIRINDA TIRHANI NORIA	23RD RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 17 CLLR. MAKHUVELE NHLENGANI PIET	24TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 18 CLLR. MATHONSI TIVEKA AGNES	25TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 19 CLLR. SHILOWA NZAMA RECKSON	26TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 20 CLLR. NGOBENI RISIMATI EDWARD	27TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 21 CLLR. MASWANGANYI KHAZAMULA ODAS	28TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 22 CLLR. ROKHOTSO PEMLY	29TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 23 CLLR. SHIBAMBU JOHANNES PHANUEL	30TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 24 CLLR. NKUNA LENNY	31ST RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 25 CLLR. NDABA HARMONY PRETTY	32ND RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR·FOR·WARD 26 CLLR. MABUNDA TIMHAKA ROBERT	33RD RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 27	34TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 28 CLLR. RABOTHATA TIYANI AUDREY	35TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 29 CLLR. SHIVITI MORRIS	36TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 30 CLLR. MAKONDO RISIMATI ERIC	37TH RESPONDENT
COUNCILLOR FOR WARD 31 CLLR. RIKHOTSO CEDRIC SOYAPHI	38TH RESPONDENT
MARIOMBE FLYING BOYS FC	40TH RESPONDENT
JAMAICA FOOTBALL CLUB	41ST RESPONDENT
MOONLIGHT BROTHERS FC	42ND RESPONDENT
VENDA SUN FOOTBALL CLUB	43RD RESPONDENT
MANCHESTER UNITED	44TH RESPONDENT
HOMU THE ROCK FOOTBALL CLUB	45TH RESPONDENT
BRAVE HUNTERS FOOTBALL CLUB	46TH RESPONDENT
KHUMBULE YOUNG DESTROYERS FC	47TH RESPONDENT
HOMU SHOOTING STARS FC	48TH RESPONDENT
JULUKA FOOTBALL.CLUB	49TH RESPONDENT
HOMU FOOTBALL CLUB.	50TH RESPONDENT
YOUNG FOOTBALL CLUB	51ST RESPONDENT
STATION COMMANDER/SAPS HEAD GIYANI POLICE STATION	52ND RESPONDENT

 

Heard on:      20 September 2024

 

Delivered on: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal representatives by electronic mail. The date for hand down is deemed to be 03 April 2025 at 16h00.

JUDGMENT

Matumba, AJ

 

[1]        This matter came before the court on an application for a rule·nisi. The applicants, Hasan John Maluleke and Church Football Club, sought the confirmation of the rule nisi that was previously granted by this court. The application was presented on an unopposed basis, allowing the court to consider the merits of the case without contest from any opposing party.

.

[2]        The applicants initiated the e proceedings with the objective of obtaining an order to suspend a soccer tournament titled the "Greater Giyani Mayor's Cup 2024", which was scheduled to take place in July and August. 2024. They sought this suspension to ensure a proper determination of a dispute that they lodged with the Mayor and the Municipal Manager of the Greater Giyani Local Municipality, as well as the Giyani regional office of the South African Football Association ("SAFA Giyani"), is made before the tournament commenced.

 

[3]        The Mayor is the first respondent; the Greater Giyani Local Municipality is the second respondent and SAFA Giyani is identified as the sixth respondent in this matter. Reference to the respondents in this judgment specifically pertain to these respondents.

 

[4]        In the lodged dispute, the applicants' contended that there had been an unjust exclusion of the Church Football Club, which had met the necessary criteria to qualify for the tournament. However, this qualification was allegedly undermined by the mischievous replacement of the club by another club did not meet the required criteria.

 

[5]        Despite being aware of the application, the respondents did not file any answering papers. Instead, on the scheduled hearing date, counsel for the first and second respondents appeared in court, indicating that the first and second respondents intended to file an explanatory affidavit, purportedly to address the issue of liability for costs.

 

[6]        In light of the dispute lodged by the applicants with the respondents, the court granted the rule nisi on 27 July 2024, requiring the respondents to show cause why the orders sought by the applicants should not be made final. The issue of costs was scheduled for determination on the return date.

 

[7]        On 20 September 2024, the court was tasked with determining whether to uphold the rule nisi based on the applicants' papers and submissions, as well as whether it should exercise its discretion to award costs to the applicants, given that the respondents had not actively opposed the application.

 

[8]        The court did not merely accept the applicants’ assertions at face value. Instead, it carefully considered whether· the applicants had established a valid case for the confirmation of the rule nisi. The court acknowledged that the exclusion of the church Football Club from participating in the tournament was unjust Furthermore, the court recognized the importance of .the Church Football Club's right to participate in the tournament and noted that its exclusion would result in harm that could not be adequately remedied through other means, particularly given that there would be no similar tournament in that year.

 

[9]        The Church Football Club successfully won the qualifying matches, securing the right to represent Ward 9 in the tournament. However, shortly thereafter, the club was informed that this right had been reassigned to another club, known as the "Squad", which was hastily formed on the eve of the tournament.

 

[10]      The Squad had not participated in any qualifying matches, rendering it ineligible to compete in the tournament. Its emergence led to significant disruptions, adversely affecting the Church Football Club. Their actions escalated to the point where they forced Church Football Club players off the soccer grounds at Giyani Stadium during their match against Ward 25. The incident not only undermined the integrity of the match but also resulted in the Church Football Club losing crucial match points, jeopardising their chances of advancing further in the competition. The situation raised serious concerns about fair play and the proper administration of the tournament.

 

[11]      In addressing the issue of costs, the court recognized that it has a broad discretion to award costs as it sees fit. The prevailing principle is that costs follow the event, meaning that the losing party usually bears the costs of the proceedings. This principle serves to promote fairness and accountability within the judicial process.

 

[12]      Although the respondents did not actively oppose the application, the court found that their actions, as the organisers and governing bodies of the tournament, led to the unjust exclusion of the Church Football Club from the tournament. This exclusion was calculated to deny the club its rightful opportunity to compete.

 

[13]      In the interest of fairness and justice, it is essential that parties who are entrusted with managing the affairs affecting others do so with a high degree of responsibility and diligence. This includes acting transparently and justifying decisions that significantly impact the rights and interests of others. When parties fail to engage in such practices, they impose undue burdens on others, which can lead to unnecessary legal disputes and costs. That is what happened in this case, the respondents failed to act responsibly and diligently.

 

[14]      The court found that the respondents' failure to address the dispute lodged by the applicants was detrimental to the Church Football Club, the tournament, and all competing clubs. This warranted an order for costs against the respondents. By imposing these costs, the court aimed to hold the respondents accountable for their actions, reinforcing the importance of equitable treatment for all participating clubs in the competition.

 

[15]      The applicants should not be burdened with the costs incurred in seeking judicial intervention due to the respondents' unjustified actions. The exclusion of the Church Football Club from the tournament, executed without justification, created unnecessary complications and legal burdens for the applicants, compelling them to bring the matter before the court to rectify the situation. Consequently, the applicants' were left with no choice but to seek judicial intervention to address the unjust exclusion of the Church Football Club from the tournament, a situation that could have been avoided had the respondents acted fairly and responsibly.

 

Order

 

[16]      In light of the above, I made the following order:

 

16.1    The rule nisi granted on 27 July 2024 is hereby confirmed.

 

16.2    The respondents are ordered jointly and severally, the one paying the-other to be absolved, to pay the Applicants' costs on .a party and party High Court scale B, which costs shall include costs of Counsel.

 

 

TE MATUMBA

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA,

LIMPOPO LOCAL DIVISION

THOHOYANDOU

 

 

Appearances:

 

For the Applicants:              Adv. I Khosa

                                                Maluleke Attorneys

                                                Thohoyandou

                                                E-mail: reception@m-attorneys.co.za

                                                Or : terencemaluleke@gmail.com

 

For the First and                   Adv. Nelwamondo

Second Respondents:        Ligege and associates Inc.

                                                Thohoyandou

                                                E-mail: info@ligegeandassociatesinc.co.za

---