Greater Giyani Local Municipality and Another v Maluleke and Others (1640/2024) [2025] ZALMPTHC 7 (3 April 2025)

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.

E-mail: info@ligegeandassociatesinc.co.za