IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUT H AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: 2025 -040663
In the matter between:
SWIMMING SOUTH AFRICA Applicant
And
SOUTH AFRICAN WATER POLO NPC First Respondent
(Registration number 2025/152675/08)
ZAIDA ADAMS Second Respondent
MATTHEW KEMP Third Respondent
ROBERT WAGNER Fourth Respondent
ROBBIE TAYLOR Fifth Respondent
DUNCAN WOODS Sixth Respondent
SIEG LOKOTSCH Seventh Respondent
TONY FERGUSON Eighth Respondent
JARED WINGATE -PEARSE Ninth Respondent
RICHARD IRVINE Tenth Respondent
DEAINE MENTOOR Eleventh Respondent
STEFFANIE WERRET Twelfth Respondent
KEVIN ADRIAAN Thirteenth Respondent
SOUTH AFRICAN SPORTS CONFEDERATION Fourteenth Respondent
AND OLYMPIC COMMITTEE
Court: Justice J Cloete
Heard: 14 May 2025
Delivered electronically : 18 June 2025
JUDGMENT
CLOETE, J
Introduction
[1] The applicant is the national federation for purposes of the National Sport and
Recreation Act1 (the “NSRA”) in respect of the aquatic disciplines of diving, open
water swimming, swimming, synchronized swimming and water polo. It is also a
member of the South African Sport Confederation and Olympic Committee
(“SASCOC”) and is currently the only national federation in South Africa that is
recognized as the responsible body for, inter alia, the sport of water polo by World
Aquatics, the inte rnational federation responsible for all aquatic sports.
1 No 110 of 1998
[2] The first respondent is an emergent organisation, formed with the support of
hundreds of water polo players, officials and administrators across South Africa, with
the broad goal of developing a nd advancing the sport of water polo. The second to
fourth respondents are directors of the first respondent. The fifth respondent is its
interim chief executive officer, and the sixth to thirteenth respondents are members
of its interim executive committe e. The fourteenth respondent, SASCOC, is cited
“only for the interest it has in these proceedings as the national sports federation
under the NSRA”. Accordingly, no relief is sought against the fourteenth respondent,
and in argument the applicant abandone d reliance on an affidavit which that
respondent filed at the eleventh hour. For convenience, and unless otherwise
indicated, I will thus refer to the first to thirteenth respondents collectively as “the
respondents” and at times to the first respondent a s “SAWP”.
[3] On 28 March 2025 the applicant launched this application as one of urgency
on 4 court days’ notice to the respondents for hearing on 2 April 2025. In the notice
of motion, the respondents were given less than 24 hours to file a notice of in tention
to oppose, and a further 24 hours thereafter to deliver answering affidavits. On 2
April 2025, the application was postponed by agreement (with a timetable for the
filing of further papers) to 14 May 2025, when the matter came before me.
[4] The applicant seeks wide -ranging final interdictory relief against the
respondents. Initially, this relief included an order to prevent the respondents from
passing off the first respondent “as if it had the authority to govern or administer the
sport of water polo in South Africa”. The passing -off relief was abandoned during
argument once it was conceded that there was no cogent evidence to suggest the
respondents were in fact doing so. The remaining relief with which the applicant
persists is a final interdi ct against the respondents preventing them from: (a)
purporting to carry out the administration or governance of the sport of water polo in
South Africa; and (b) interfering with the affairs of the applicant, and in particular
from: (i) directing or encour aging any person or entity to boycott or avoid
participating in events held under the auspices of the applicant; (ii) dissuading or
discouraging persons from participating in local or international water polo events
where the applicant is organising, or h as organized, a team to participate in “that
international event”; (iii) interfering with communications by the applicant to its water
polo membership, by “redirecting or encouraging any person or entity to interfere
with the communications of the applica nt by ignoring communications sent by the
applicant to its water polo membership, or failing or refusing to pass on those
communications to the persons or entities to whom those communications are
intended to be forwarded”; and (iv) securing sponsorships o r raising funds from the
public ostensibly to fund the administration of water polo in this country, and of
teams to be organized by the respondents to represent South Africa abroad.
Punitive costs are sought against any respondent opposing the applicati on,
alternatively on the highest party and party scale.
[5] Given that the applicant asks for final interdictory relief, it must demonstrate:(a)
a clear right; (b) an injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended; and (c) the
absence of another sati sfactory remedy.2 The respondents deny that the applicant
has established any such right, or that they are engaging in the conduct complained
of, and as such they contend the applicant is not entitled to an order in the terms it
seeks, or any other order.
Statutory and administrative framework
[6] The preamble to the NSRA sets out its purpose as follows :
“To provide for the promotion and development of sport and recreation and
the co -ordination of the relationships between Sport and Recreation Sout h
Africa [ie. The National Department for Sport and Recreation], the Sports
Confederation [ ie. SASCOC], national federations and other agencies; to
provide for measures aimed at correcting imbalances in sport and recreation;
to provide for dispute resolu tion mechanisms in sport and recreation; to
empower the Minister to make regulations and to provide for matters
connected therewith.”
[7] A “national federation” is defined in the NSRA as meaning:
2 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221
“… a national governing body of a code of sport or recrea tional activity in the
Republic recognized by the relevant international controlling body as the only
authority for the administration and control of the relative code of sport or
recreational activity in the Republic.”
(my emphasis)
[8] A “code of sport ” is not defined in the NSRA, and nor is a “relative code of
sport”. Their ordinary meanings include “a specific type or variety of sport” and “a
specific sport or distinct version of a sport”. Water polo would thus be a specific
sport falling within the umbrella category of aquatic disciplines for purposes of the
NSRA. Sections 2 and 6 of the NSRA deal with national federations. Both set out
the statutory obligations of such an entity but do not contain any rights additional to
the one contained in the definition of a national federation in the NSRA. These
obligations are that it must: (a) develop the discipline concerned at club level in
accordance with certain administrative instruments; (b) assume full responsibility for
safety issues within the part icular discipline; (c) actively participate in and support
programs and services of the Department and SASCOC insofar as high performance
sport is concerned; and (d) fulfil recruitment criteria for foreign players. Accordingly,
the only statutory right which the applicant enjoys (the applicant asserts no other
type of right – this was clarified in argument) is that it is currently the only body
recognized by World Aquatics as having authority for the control and administration
of, inter alia, water polo in South Africa.
[9] The World Aquatics constitution3 defines a “member”, a “national body” and a
“national federation” separately for its own purposes. A member is “a National Body
recognized by World Aquatics to be a member of World Aquatics”. A national body is
“a body which is established to represent the development and organisation of
Aquatics in a particular country”. A national federation is “a National Body of
Aquatics recognized by World Aquatics and, as such, being a (World Aquatics)
Member”. In turn “Aquatics” is defined as meaning “all sport disciplines governed by
World Aquatics including Swimming, Open Water Swimming, Diving, High Diving,
Water Polo, Artistic Swimming, Masters, and any other discipline that may be
3 Approved by its Congress in Melbourne, Australia, on 12 December 2022, in force as from 1 January 2023.
governed by World Aquatics f rom time to time “. As will appear a bit later, it seems
that notwithstanding the definition of “Aquatics” in its constitution, World Aquatics
itself appears to recognise that not only so -called umbrella bodies covering all sports
within one discipline ar e eligible for membership.
[10] Membership is dealt with in article 5 of the World Aquatics constitution. It
reads in relevant part as follows:
“5.1 Any National Body governing [the relevant discipline(s)] … shall be
eligible to be a member of World Aq uatics, in accordance with this
Constitution and the World Aquatics rules.
5.2 Only one National Body shall be recognized as a Member in each
Country …….
5.4 The Bureau4 shall decide, in its absolute discretion, whether to admit an
applicant for membership . In particular, in its decision, the Bureau is not
bound by any decision of national or international political or sport
organisations. If membership is not granted by the Bureau, the applicant may
appeal such decision to the next Congress. The decision of the Congress
shall be final but may be appealed within 21 days from the date of notification
of the decision of the Congress to the Court of Arbitratio n for Sport.
5.5 In relation to those countries where two or more national bodies
separately govern various disciplines of Aquatics , the Bureau shall take all
appropriate measures to ensure that the interests of all Athletes and Aquatics
institutions are properly promoted and the participation of all Athletes in World
Aquatics competitions and events is encouraged. The Bureau shall determine
on a case - by- case basis, the rights and obligations that any such National
Body that is not a member of World Aqua tics shall have and which benefits
such National Body may receive, taking into due consideration the
4 The “Bureau” is defined in its constitution as the “World Aquatics Bureau “. In terms of article 17, the Bureau
has the right to interpret, implement and enforce the constitution and the World Aquatic s rules.
specificities of the relevant Country and the needs of the athletes of that
Country…”
(my emphasis)
[11] Also relevant are certain of the NSRA regulations5. Regulation 3 provides that
for a sport or recreation body to be recognized for purposes of the NSRA, it must: (a)
be properly constituted and operate on democratic principles; (b) have a formal
written constitution and an acceptable democratically elect ed committee which
operates in a transparent, accountable and responsible manner; (c) demonstrate an
agreed level of management and financial accountability and stability; (d) have
affiliates or members within five provinces functioning within the principl es of good
governance: (e) provide a development program and an equity plan; and (f) be
recognized by a relevant international controlling body.
[12] Regulation 4(1) deals with what is required in an application for recognition.
These are essentially adm inistrative requirements which must be submitted to the
Chief Director of Client Support Services of the Department of Sport and Recreation
South Africa. In terms of regulation 4(2) the Chief Director must consider the
application and if satisfied that the applicant complies with the criteria for recognition,
enter its name in a register, whereafter the Chief Director must issue a certificate of
recognition.
[13] Accordingly, as I understand it, the legislative and administrative framework of
the NSRA con templates a scheme in terms of which it is open to a group of
individuals to: (a) form a national body in respect of any sport (or recreational
activity), whether it be in respect of a range of sports all falling under one discipline
or a particular sport falling within that overall discipline; (b) apply to the relevant
international controlling body to be admitted as a member; (c) if successful, apply to
the Chief Director for recognition, and (d) ultimately seek to become a national
federation, or one of the national federations, recognised for purposes of the NSRA.
Put differently, the scheme does not contemplate recognition by the Minister of
Sport and Recreation or the Chief Director as the precursor to eligibility for
5 Recognition of Sport and Recreation Bodies Regulations, 2011 published in terms of Government Notice no R
641 dated 8 August 2011.
membership by the relevant in ternational controlling body, but rather that it is the
latter (in the present case, World Aquatics) which determines, in its sole and
absolute discretion ,whether to admit an applicant for membership, in which event
that applicant, if successful, becomes eligible to be recognized as a national
governing body in South Africa.
[14] Furthermore, the World Aquatics constitution itself makes provision for two or
more national bodies to separately govern different disciplines of aquatic sports in a
particul ar country, significantly because – in terms of article 5.5 - the Bureau has the
obligation to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the interests of all athletes
and aquatics institutions are properly promoted, and participation in events
encourage d, with due consideration to the specificities of the relevant country and
the needs of the athletes of that country. Moreover, the definition of “national
federation” in the NSRA makes no mention of only one national governing body
being permitted to qua lify as such in South Africa. Although the definition refers to “a
national governing body” it does not necessarily follow that therefore there can be
only one such body for all aquatic disciplines in this country. Were that the case,
given the provisions of the World Aquatics constitution to which I have referred,
South Africa would not likely have recognized World Aquatics as “the relevant
international controlling body”. Indeed, the World Aquatics constitution even appears
to contemplate the situation w here a national body which has unsuccessfully sought
membership can nonetheless have rights conferred and obligations imposed upon it
by World Aquatics.
[15] But it does not end there, since the World Aquatics constitution makes
provision for an appeal process, first to its Congress and if unsuccessful, to the Court
of Arbitration for Sport.Article 36 of the World Aquatics constitution provides that it
shall be governed by and interpreted in terms of Swiss law; and article 31.1
stipulates that the Court of Arbitration for Sport (“CAS”), with its seat in Lausanne,
Switzerland, has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve any kind of disputes between, inter
alia, World Aquatics, its members and “National Aquatics bodies”, and that the CAS
shall resolve any disput e in accordance with the Code of Sports -Related Arbitration
(“CAS Code”), the World Aquatics constitution, the applicable World Aquatics rules
and, subsidiarily, Swiss law.
[16] I find support for my understanding of the NSRA scheme in the following.
International sporting federations typically structure their constitutions to assert their
independence and autonomy from interference by external bodies, in particular,
national governments.6 Having regard to what I have set out above it is fair to accept
that World Aquatics is no different. The CAS has acknowledged the importance and
legitimacy of the principle that international federations are designed to be
independent and autonomous.7 Any application for membership shall accordingly be
determined by World Aquatics, and that international federation alone, and any
dispute in relation thereto would be referred to the Congress and thereafter
arbitration before the CAS.
[17] In Indian Hockey Federation (IHF) v International Hockey Federation (FHI)
and H ockey India8 the CAS laid down and /or reiterated the following legal
principles. First, the content of the Swiss constitutional right to associate is designed
to protect an Association - within certain boundaries - from all kinds of state
interference (in cluding interference by state courts). Second, Swiss law gives the
members of an Association very broad autonomy, including choosing who else to
admit to membership, and the right of a Swiss Association to regulate and determine
its affairs is considered e ssential. Third, one of the expressions of private autonomy
of Associations is the competence to issue rules relating to their own governance,
their membership and their own competitions. Fourth, (and at the risk of repetition)
the “starting point’ is that an Association has autonomy to accept or refuse
applications for membership.
[18] Expanding on this, it is also settled that an international federation alone has
the right to decide who to admit as a member from a particular country, and not the
gove rnment or national olympic committee of the country or territory in question
( such as SASCOC), although it is open to an international federation to take those
views into account, and in some instances, international federations do make
recognition by a c ountry’s national olympic committee a condition of membership.
6 Lewis and Taylor: Sport Law and Practice, 4 ed (2021) Bloomsbury Professional Chapter A 1 pp 4 -5 at
para A 1.2 and A1. 4.
7 Kuwait Sporting Club et al v FIFA and Kuwait Football Association CAS 2015 / N4241, para 8.60.
8 CAS 2014 / A / 3828
However this is not the case in World Aquatics as is evident from the articles of its
constitution to which I have referred. The “default position” was set out in Russian
Badminton Federation v International Badminton Federation9, where the latter
sought to justify its decision to recognize one Russian national body instead of
another on the basis that the Russian Olympic Committee had recommended that
action. The CAS panel rejected this argume nt10 stating that:
“The ROC [ie. the Russian Olympic Committee] has no right to ‘pick and
choose’ the national associations which … compose its membership. The
recognition of the national federation lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of
the internati onal federation. This principle conforms with and remains
consistent with Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter which states that each
international federation ‘maintains its independence and autonomy in the
administration of its sport’.11
[19] This was reaffirm ed in Indian Hockey Federation12 where the CAS stated it
would be contrary to the principle of autonomy of an Association to oblige an
international federation to wait, in deciding on an application for membership, on the
government of the relevant country to choose, between two or more entities, which it
will designate as a specific candidate member. Thus, in order to be admitted to
membership of an international federation, a national body (ie, a sport body) must
only satisfy the criteria for admission to membership contained in the international
federation’s constitution (and continue to do so subsequently). Obviously, these
criteria would vary from sport to sport.
[20] Lastly, the applicant cannot seriously suggest that the respondents do not
have the constitutionally entrenched right to freedom of association contained in s 18
of the Bill of Rights, and that the same applies to any individual water polo player
wishing to join the respondents. The Constitutional Court has made clear that
freedom of as sociation is a fundamental right which protects against coercion,
enables individuals to organise around particular areas of concern, and to hold both
9 CAS 2005 / A / 971
10 At para 7.2.6
11 See also Croatian Golf Federation v European Golf Association CAS 2010 / A / 2275 at para 27.
12 At para 159
public and private bodies to account. The right has dual content in that it allows for a
person to freel y associate (the positive element) as well as to decide not to associate
at all ( the negative element). In addition s 16 of the Bill of Rights entrenches the
right to freedom of expression subject to certain exclusions, none of which are
applicable in t he present matter.
The creation of SAWP
[21] SAWP is a non -profit company duly incorporated under the laws of South
Africa and registered on 20 February 2025. The respondents state it was set up for
the following purposes .First, to address what they describe as the failure of the
applican t to take water polo seriously and which , according to them, has resulted
in “ the parlous, shambolic and neglected state in which water polo currently finds
itself in South Africa, with a lack of meaningful transformation, poor administration, a
dearth of fundraising initiatives, and a non -existent high performance program” .
Second, to deal exclusively with the sport of water polo since, according to the
respondents, the applicant’s focus is almost exclusively on swimming and is heavily
skewed i n favour of swimmers as opposed to water polo players. Third, to address
the alleged failure of the applicant to meaningfully engage in good faith with water
polo stakeholders and role players by forming a collective body who, de facto,
represent the over whelming majority of the water polo playing community throughout
the country and have its best interests at heart for the promotion and development of
water polo in South Africa. Fourth, to acknowledge and address the distinct needs of,
and developmental p athways for, water polo and a desire for more focused
governance tailored to the specific requirements of the sport. Fifth, to address the
need for an entity that has autonomy in its decision – making processes, resource
allocation and the formulation of s trategic plans specifically designed to advance
water polo, and which can engage with and serve the effectively voiceless and
isolated majority of water polo players and potential water polo players in South
Africa. Although the applicant has acknowledged in a media statement to which I
refer below that it has “ongoing governance and operational deficiencies” it disputes
the respondents’ allegations on this score. However, this is not an issue before me
and it is thus not a dispute I am required to determin e.
[22] The respondents state further that, although as a first step in having SAWP
registered, it has been formed without members, the intention is to seek approval
from the water polo playing community itself by encouraging as many as possible to
asso ciate voluntarily with it. Thereafter, and should it garner sufficient interest, the
intention is to ultimately “socialise”, vote on, and register a bespoke memorandum of
incorporation that provides for those persons to become members and elect, where
applicable, its leaders. SAWP currently has the support of the following bodies and
individuals: (a) Gauteng Water Polo, Cape Town Metro Water Polo, Winelands
Water Polo, Nelson Mandela Bay Water Polo and SA Masters Water Polo;(b) the
Chair of Schools Water P olo South Africa and the Chair of Eastern Gauteng Water
Polo; (c) administrators and coaches, including the former SA Women’s Water Polo
head coach and the first female head coach in the history of the Olympic Games ;
and (d) approximately 750 water polo players, officials and “administrators”.
According to the respondents this stands in contrast with a statement made by the
applicant’s president to the Portfolio Committee on Sports, Art and Culture in
Parliament on 1 April 2025 wherein he recorded that “w e have never had more than
130 … water polo players registered.”
[23] As pointed out by the respondents, SAWP is not a member of the applicant,
the latter being a voluntary association; it is currently not a “national federation” as
defined in the NSRA; and it is currently not a “national federation” recognized by
World Aquatics. SAWP also makes clear that with the weight and backing of a
sufficiently representative support base it intends to invite the applicant to enter into
meaningful engagement with i t. The desired outcome of such engagement, on the
respondents’ version, would be for the applicant to acknowledge that “it has failed in
its administration of the sport and to allow for the peaceful transfer of authority” to
SAWP to run water polo in South Africa.
[24] The respondents say that SAWP intends to pursue its goals in the following
manner. In the short term, by implementing inter alia a new registration system to
organize and unite clubs, players, coaches and referees and to develop high
perfor mance programs for its members. In the longer term, by: (a) applying for
membership with World Aquatics in order to ensure that South African water polo
teams can compete at the highest international levels through proper preparation,
increased funding and strategic partnerships; and (b0 consequent thereto and to the
extent necessary, working with the Minister and the Department together with
SASCOC and the applicant to become the new national governing body for the sport
of water polo.
Whether requirement s for final interdictory relief met
[25] The applicant’s case is that it has a clear statutory right worthy of protection
because in South Africa there are currently no separate bodies governing various
disciplines of aquatic sports. In its words, the So uth African regulation of sports
exists within an international framework and not within a vacuum. To my mind the
applicant has misconceived the nature of its right. It is correct that at present it is the
only national federation for aquatic disciplines r ecognized by World Aquatics.
However SAWP is not purporting to hold itself out as a national federation. That is
the only right which the applicant has which is worthy of protection. I agree with the
respondents that the applicant does not have an exclusiv e right in perpetuity to
govern or administer the sport of water polo in South Africa. Accordingly, it has no
right to prevent the respondents from taking steps to legally acquire that right in due
course (including by establishing its legitimacy in the wi der stakeholder community
by creating the appropriate organisational structures in the interim). This may
ultimately result in the applicant having the authority to govern or administer water
polo in South Africa in future, but this is nothing more than an incidence of our
constitutionally entrenched democracy. It does not confer with it a legal right of the
applicant worthy of interdictory protection.
[26] SAWP is also not purporting to carry out the administration or governance of
the sport of water pol o in South Africa. The grounds advanced by the applicant in its
founding papers to support this allegation were as follows. First, by registering as
“South African Water Polo NPC”, SAWP was “implying” that it is the entity
responsible for the administrati on of water polo in this country. This ground was
effectively abandoned once the applicant conceded during argument that SAWP is
not passing itself off as the applicant. Second, the applicant placed reliance on an
open letter sent out on behalf of SAWP o n 11 March 2025 in which it was stated inter
alia that SAWP was following the example of other South African sporting
federations; would be led by an interim leadership group and an executive committee
“ to do what is necessary and appropriate in order to restore the integrity and
reputation of water polo in South Africa”; and would follow certain steps to achieve its
goals. The applicant’s complaint was that these steps relate to the administration
and governance of the sport of water polo “which falls ent irely under the authority” of
the applicant and no other entity, and that the applicant has been carrying out these
functions since its inception in 1992.
[27] However what the allegedly offending letter of 11 March 2025 also contained
was SAWP’s explici t acknowledgement that it is not a “breakaway” from the
applicant, and in regard to international competition, it would be desirable for SAWP,
in consultation with the applicant, to obtain the required recognition, including all
necessary delegated levels of authority, to run the sport of water polo in this country.
The letter continued that “[f]ailing this … [SAWP] ... will engage with World Aquatics
to recognize it separately from … [the applicant] ... as the body representing the vast
majority of players in the country – as provided for in the World Aquatics constitution”.
The annexure to that letter was to similar effect. Perhaps the applicant’s fundamental
misconception is best demonstrated by the allegation in its founding affidavit that
SAWP “cannot be recognised by World Aquatics”. As I have tried to illustrate earlier
in this judgment, the applicant conflates its current status with excluding the
possibility of any other national governing body replacing it in the sole and absolute
discretion of the relevant international controlling body, i.e. World Aquatics. I accept
that the offending letter and annexure thereto contained proactive steps which
SAWP intends to take, or is taking, with that ultimate goal in mind, but this does not
mean that therefo re SAWP has taken over the administration or governance of water
polo in South Africa, or even that it has purported to do so. Third, the applicant relied
on certain press reports about SAWP’s alleged activities. These do not assist the
applicant since th ey do not constitute evidence. Fourth, in its own press release of
13 March 2025, in which reliance was placed on the role that SASCOC plays in
regard to international recognition, the applicant stated that SASCOC’s constitution
“explicitly supports the pr inciple of recognizing only one national federation per sport”.
Whether or not this is SASCOC’s position is immaterial to recognition by the relevant
international controlling body (World Aquatics) of another national body (SAWP) in
light of the CAS autho rities to which I have referred.
[28] This leaves the allegations of interference in the applicant’s affairs which, as
stated at the beginning of this judgment, boil down to enticing membership and
sponsorship away from the applicant; encouraging boyco tting of the applicant’s
teams and events; and hindering its communications with the applicant’s
membership. The applicant maintains that SAWP has called upon the “persons and
entities” that have chosen to associate with it to boycott the applicant’s even ts and to
ignore any communications from it. The applicant placed reliance on a statement
issued under the hand of the fifth respondent (SAWP’s interim CEO) in which, so the
applicant asserts, he “dissuades athletes and families of athletes from participat ing in
the Africa Aquatics Tournament” which was held in April 2025. However a plain
reading of that statement does not support the applicant’s assertion. The author
wrote that SAWP had been inundated with inquiries regarding the event in question
and tha t it deeply empathized with the players and parents grappling with the
complexities of the selection process and the overall administration of these types of
tours. The statement continued in relevant part as follows:
“Our newly established organisation i s built on key principles, one of which is
to always act in the best interests of our players. We want to make it clear that
we hold no prejudice against any players or parents who choose to participate
in these … events. Every South African athlete has wo rked tirelessly and
deserves recognition for their dedication and achievements.
However, for too long, the sport has suffered from a lack of structure,
leadership, and continued mismanagement at multiple levels. It is our sincere
hope that players and par ents are not being pressured by … [the applicant] …
Into making decisions without careful consideration. We encourage everyone
to ask clear and logical questions before committing to these tours.
Some key questions to consider: … [these pertained to the selection process
and timing thereof, cost and preparedness] ...
Ultimately, this is a personal decision for each family. However, we must
recognize that passively accepting these circumstances will only allow similar
practices to continue. We encourage o pen dialogue and informed decision –
making to ensure that athletes receive the best opportunities and fair
treatment in the sport.”
[29] The applicant explained that it does not communicate selection to athletes
directly, but instead does so via its pro vincial affiliates, their districts, and their clubs.
According to the applicant, SAWP also directly interfered with these communications
and prevented it from notifying athletes of their selection for the April 2025
tournament. However a very different p icture emerged in the answering and
confirmatory affidavits filed by the respondents, who produced evidence that not
only were the applicant’s team selection communications in regard to the
tournament dutifully passed on, but in many cases the second, ei ghth and tenth
respondents went out of their way to actively assist the applicant’s managers with
the provision of direct contact details for the parents of the selected athletes. Indeed
some of the applicant’s team managers expressed gratitude for this as sistance.
[30] The applicant alleged in the founding affidavit that it has no suitable
alternative remedy since the respondents “have refused to engage with the applicant
and have instead allowed this fight to spill into the media, with the intent of
embarrassing … [the applicant] … and seeking to promote their own interests.”
However the evidence to which I have already referred demonstrates that from the
outset the respondents have expressed the clear intention to engage with the
applicant. Furthermore, the respon dents set out a number of factual examples of
prior attempts by various stakeholders and role players in water polo to engage with
the applicant, all apparently to no avail. But in any event the applicant has a
suitable alternative remedy. All it has to do is inform the South African water polo
community at large that, for so long as it remains the national federation under the
NSRA, national and international competitions fall under its auspices.
[31] I am accordingly persuaded that the applicant has failed to demonstrate any
of the requirements for final interdictory relief. Although the failure to demonstrate
one of them is sufficient for refusing the relief sought, the Constitutional Court has
confirmed it is desirable, where possible, for a lower court to decide all such issues
in a matter before it.
Costs
[32] Both the applicant and the respondents appointed senior and junior counsel to
represent them. There is no reason why costs should not follow the result. Given the
nature of the matter coun sel were agreed that the appropriate party and party scale
should be scale C.
[33] The following order is made:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant shall pay the respondents’ party and party costs on
scale C, including the costs of both senior and junior counsel and any
reserved costs orders.
____________________
J I Cloete
Judge of the High Court
For Applicant Adv N C Arendse SC
Adv O Ben -Zeev
Instructed by Dev Maharaj & Associates (JHB)
For 1st –13th Respondents Adv J Muller SC
Adv G Solik
Attorneys for Respondent Minde Shapiro & Smith (Gqeberha)