Court ruling: WP Athletics not in contempt over disciplinary hearings
James Evans has encountered a setback in his legal efforts, as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed his application for reconsideration against Western Province Athletics (WP Athletics).
Image: Supplied
Controversial sports boss James Evans has encountered a setback in his legal efforts, as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has dismissed his application for reconsideration against Western Province Athletics (WP Athletics).
The court struck the application from the roll this week, with Evans asserting that WP Athletics failed to hold disciplinary hearings for certain members within the 90-day timeframe stipulated by a previous court order.
Evans had lodged the complaints against certain members of WP Athletics and requested it to hold disciplinary hearings against them.
This was followed by arbitration proceedings, which culminated in an arbitration award.
That award was made by consent in terms of a settlement agreement.
Evans then launched an application to make the arbitration award an order of court, which was granted by consent on November 17, 2021.
He thereafter brought an application for WP Athletics to comply with the arbitration award.
That too was made an order of court.
WP Athletics was ordered to comply with clause 3 of the arbitration award by commencing compliance within 30 days of service and completing disciplinary processes within 90 days, unless an extension for completion (but not commencement) is granted on good cause.
The order was served on WP Athletics on August 30, 2022, and the first inquiry was conducted within the 30-day time period.
Evans on November 30, 2022, filed a supplementary affidavit to apply, among others, for an order holding WP Athletics in contempt of court for failing to hold the further disciplinary hearings.
However, the high court found that 90 days meant court days and that Evans’s filing sheet and supplementary affidavit were “simply premature”.
SCA acting Justice Fathima Dawood reiterated that exceptional circumstances exist only where a case raises a “substantial legal issue, is of great public importance, or where refusing leave would cause a grave injustice”.
Attempts to get comment from WP Athletics and Evans were unsuccessful by deadline.
In a previous statement by WP Athletics, it said: “This process created by Evans for inexplicable reasons, caused him to formulate his own rules and time frames. This is part of the problem between the two parties…The court also found that Evans positioned himself, not only in the dispute between the two parties, but also as regards to the court process between them, as referee and player, it was either his way or the highway. Perhaps it could assist Mr Evans to humble himself to the reality that because things are not done his way, they are not necessarily inherently wrong."
Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.
Cape Argus