About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2019
>>
[2019] ZAGPPHC 170
|
|
National Soccer League and Another v South African Football Association and Others (90375/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 170 (17 May 2019)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH
AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1)
REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
NO
CASE
NO: 90375/2018
17/5/2019
In
the matter between:
NATIONAL
SOCCER LEAGUE
FIRST APPLICANT
ABSA
BANK LIMITED
SECOND APPLICANT
And
SOUTH
AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
FIRST RESPONDENT
OUTSURANCE
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SECOND RESPONDENT
OUTSURANCE
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
THIRD RESPONDENT
OUTVEST
PROPERTY LIMITED
FOURTH RESPONDENT
OUTSURANCEHOLDINGS
LIMITED
FIFTH
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
COLLIS J:
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The National Soccer League ("NSL")
and ABSA BANK Limited ("ABSA") brought an urgent
application against the
South African Football Association ("SAFA")
and four Outsurance companies ("Outsurance"). In the main
application,
[1]
which is set down for hearing on 22-24 May 2019, the applicants seek
an interim interdict preventing SAFA and Outsurance from continuing
to implement the Outsurance Agreement, pending the final resolution
of the dispute either by means of arbitration proceedings,
alternatively review proceedings.
[2]
Pursuant to the main application being
launched SAFA filed notices in terms of rule 35(12) and 35(14)
demanding the disclosure of
61 documents it alleged are referred to
in the NSL's founding affidavit. SAFA further filed a rule 7 notice
challenging the authority
of the deponent to the founding affidavit
filed on behalf of the NSL and ABSA in relation to the main
application.
[3]
Based on the above mentioned notices,
SAFA instituted interlocutory proceedings seeking orders to compel
compliance with the notices.
[4]
On 6 May 2019, this Court was called
upon to adjudicate on the two interlocutory applications. At the
commencement of the proceedings
the legal representatives had
intimated to me in chambers that at a case management meeting held
between themselves and the Acting
Deputy Judge President on 26
February 2019, it was agreed that if convenient to me given the short
time frame between the hearing
date of the interlocutory applications
to the hearing date of the main application, I could merely grant
orders with reasons to
follow in order to facilitate the hearing of
the main application set down for 22-24 May 2019.
ORDER
[5]
Having therefore considered the
affidavits filed of record and the respective arguments presented the
orders which I issue is as
follows:
5.1
In respect of the
Rule
7 application:
The application is
dismissed with the first respondent ordered to pay the costs of the
second applicant on an attorney and client
scale from 1 May 2019.
5.2
In respect of the
Rule
30A application
to compel the
furnishing of the documents sought in terms of rule 35(12) and
35(14): The application is dismissed with the first
respondent
ordered to pay the costs of the first applicant on a punitive scale,
such costs to include the costs of three counsel.
[6]
This Court's reasons for the orders so
given will follow in due course.
COLLIS
J
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH
AFRICA
Appearances:
For
the First Applicant: C. Puckrin SC, F. Ismail and S. Scott
Attorney
of the First Applicant: Webber Wentzel
For
the Second Applicant: S. Budlender
Attorney
for the Second Applicant: ENSafrica
For
the First Respondent: J. Rautenbach SC and D. Tshabalala
Attorney
for the First Respondent: GNG Incorporated
Date
of Hearing: 6 May 2019
Date
of Judgment: 17 May 2019
[1]
Founding Affidavit p 133 papa 306