IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case No: 85186/25
Reportable

In the matter between
ZIZWE UNITED FOOOTBALL CLUB Applicant

AND

THE SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION 1st Respondent
WESTERN CAPE
THE SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION 2nd Respondent
HANOVER PARK FOOTBALL CLUB 3rd Respondent
KAKAMAS JUVENTUS FOOTBALL CLUB 4th Respondent
MIDLANDS W ANDERERS FOOTBALL CLUB 5th Respondent
AFRICAN W ARRIORS FOOTBALL CLUB 6th Respondent
NAAS THE BEES FOOTBALL CLUB 7th Respondent

THAMES FOOTBALL CLUB 8th Respondent
HIGHLANDS PARK FOOTBALL CLUB 9th Respondent
LA MASIA FOOTBALL CLUB 10th
Respondent
AMA V ARARA FOOTBALL CLUB 11th
Respondent
FC RA VENS FOOTBALL CLUB 12th
Respondent
SINENKANI FOOTBALL CLUB 13TH
Respondent
MATTA MILAN FOOTBALL CLUB 14TH
Respondent
SUNRISE FOOTBALL CLUB 15TH
Respondent
MSIMELELO MABUTHO 16th
Respondent
CHRISTOPHER KISTOOR 17th
Respondent
KETENG QHU 18th
Respondent
CHESLYN ADAMS 19th
Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26 June 2025

Date of Delivering : 03 December 2025

ORDER


1. That the arbitration award, handed down by Adv. Andre’ Oosthuizen SC on
23 June 2025 (‘the award’) and attached hereto as annexure ‘A’, is hereby
made an order of this honourable Court.
2. That the first and second respondent are directed to comply with the award
and take all necessary steps to ensure that the rematch between the applicant
and the third r espondent as provided for therein take place on or before 30
June 2025.
3. That, pending the outcome of that match to be replayed in terms of the
award between the applicant and the third respondent, in order to determine
the Western Cape Provincial winner of the Western Cape ABC Motsepe
League 2024/2025, the first and second respondents are directed to suspend
the matches of the National Championships of the ABC Motsepe League
2024/2025 involving the Western Cape Provincial winner of the Western
Cape ABC Motsepe League 2024/2025.
4. That the first and second respondents be directed to pay the costs of this
application, jointly and severally, on the scale as between attorney and
client, which costs are to include the costs of two counsel, on Scale C.


JUDGMENT

THULARE J

[1] This was an urgent application to make an arbitration award an order of court,
to direct the first respondent to comply with the award and take all necessary steps
to ensure that the rematch between the applicant and the third respondent as
provided in the award took place on or before 30 June 2025, and that pending the
outcome of that match which would determine the Western Cape ABC Motsepe
League 2024/2025 the first and second respondent be directed to suspend the
matches of the National Championships of the ABC Motsepe League 2024/2025
involving the Western Cape winner. Only the first respondent opposed the
application and filed a counter application. The scope of the first respondents
opposition and what it sought in the counter -application was limited to whether
paragraphs 49.1, 49.2 and 49.3 of the arbitration award were sustainable as a
matter of law . In 49.1 the award had annulled the match between applicant and
third respondent. In 49.2 the award was for that match to be replayed within seven
days of the date of the award with the proviso that if it was impossible, the parties
could approach the arbitrator for an extension. In 49.3 the award was for the
referee and match officials to be appointed by Mr Luvuyo Pupuma , with the
proviso that if it was impossible, then the referee and match officials were to be
appointed by the second respondents National Referees Committee.

[2] The first respondents case was that it was not bound by the arbitration
agreement. Furthermore, it was argued that the ar bitration agreement nowhere

explicitly empowered the arbitrator to annul the match played on 17 May 2025 and
that the arbitrator did not rely upon the arbitration agreement as the foundation of
his terms of reference and/or powers to impose a sanction. The first respondents
case was that its representatives at the arbitration indicated that the appropriate
remedy if the applicant succeeded was an issue, which they proposed to deal with
in a concise manner, but that they did not address the question of remedy during
the oral argument to the arbitrator. They did not concede that the arbitrator had the
power to impose any sanction, let alone an annulment of the match between the
applicant and the third respondent . First respondents case was that third
respondent’s representatives as well did not concede that the arbitrator has the
power to impose a sanction, more particu larly that of annulling the match . Third
respondents representatives had at the arbitration submitted that to the extent that it
was suggested that in terms of Article 57.1.4 an arbitrator in a disciplinary matter
may order the return of an award, which could extend to include the result of a
match and, by implication, a potential rematch , then it was submitted that that was
simply not enough. Third respondent had submitted that the applicant had not
provided any clear provision within the applicable Rules, nor cited any legal
authority, to substantiate the view that the arbitration process permitted the type of
relief then sought, which was a rematch. The first respondent in its opposition to
the order sought before this court submitted that neither them or the third
respondent either explicitly or by necessary implication enlarged upon the terms of
reference as embodied in the order of court dated 10 June 2025, which did not
allow for the imposition of any sanction by the arbitrator. According to the first
respondent, in none of the exchange s between the parties was there any agreement

respondent, in none of the exchange s between the parties was there any agreement
either explicitly or implicitly that the arbitrator possessed the power to impose a
sanction, more particularly, that of annulling the match between the applicant and
the third respondent.

[3] It was submitted that based on all the material placed before the arbitrator, the
only issues which called for resolution by the arbitrator were those mentioned in
the court order of 10 June 2025, and that those i ssued were not enlarged upon
agreement between the parties, more especially on the part of the first and third
respondent. It was also argued that the dispute referred to arbitration in terms of the
court order of 10 June 2025 did not in any way allow the arbitrator to annul a
match and/or the result of the match played between Zizwe and Hannover Park. It
was the first respondents case that the second respondents disciplinary code did not
make provision for the annulment of a game or the results of a game, following
upon an invalid appointment of a referee and other match officials to the said
game, with reference to articles 2, 10 and 11 of that code). In the
counterapplication the case was that paragraphs 49.1, 49.2 and 49.3 of the award
exceeded the powers of the arbitrator and accordingly those paragraphs be
expunged from the award; that the court refuse to make the award an order of court
and refuse to grant the interim interdict on the basis that it will serve no purpose.

[4] The applicant (Zizwe) and the third respondent (Hanover Park) each won their
league streams, and the winner of their game would be the winner of the league in
the Western Cape province and would compete in the national championship
league in Gauteng in the wee k starting 30 June 2025. Zizwe declared a dispute in
relation to the match to determine the winner, which match was played on 17 May
2025. That match full time score was a 1 -all draw and Zizwe lost in the penalty
shootout. The dispute that Zizwe lodged in terms of SAFA regulatory framework
was that Luvuyo Pupuma was SAFAs Provincial Coordinator of the Western Cape
ABC Motspe League for the 2024/2025 season and was the person authorized and

require to appoint the match officials for the finals. Pupuma did no t appoint the
match officials for that match, which was in contravention of the SAFA regulatory
framework. The match officials were appointed by a person unknown and who was
not designated as contemplated in the SAFA regulatory framework and as a result
the appointment of the match officials were inter alia unlawful, invalid or irregular
and that the match officials who officiated the finals did so unlawfully. The dispute
was further that the match officials who officiated that final match did so in a
manner that was biased in favour of Hanover Park and unreasonable and irrational
in relation to Zizwe. Without limiting the conduct of the match officials to one
incident, Zizwe gave an example of what it alleged was valid goal for Zizwe which
was disallowed by flagging an offside against Zizwe, and Zizwe alleged that it had
footage demonstrating a number of such incidents which it would provide. Zi zwe
also alleged the inescapable conclusion that the match officials were unlawfull y,
invalidly and/or irregularly appointed for purposes of ensuring that Zizwe did not
win the match and that objective, given the conduct of the match officials, was
achieved. Zizwe in the dispute alleged that the unlawful, invalid and/or irregular
appointment of the match officials and their conduct in the match went against the
principles of fair play espoused in the FIFA regulatory framework, which bound
SAFA and SAFA WC and further alleged that such conduct compromised, tainted
and tarnished the integrity of the outcome of the match. Zizwes view was that the
facts underlying the complaint, that is, the appointment of match officials contrary
to SAFA prescripts and the way the match officials officiated that match, evidenced
corrupt activity. In its prayers in the dispute, given the fac t that the integrity of the
outcome of the match was compromised, tainted and tarnished, Zizwe sought inter

outcome of the match was compromised, tainted and tarnished, Zizwe sought inter
alia that the match be replayed and that SFA Provincial Referees Coordinator of
the Western Cape ABC Motsepe League appoint match officials for the match to be
replayed. In response, SAFA WC suspended Zizwe from the league.

[5] On 10 June 2025 Zizwe obtained a n urgent court order against the respondents
which declared that it could refer its disputes, including its suspension, the
appointment of the match officials and the conduct of that match by the match
officials, for urgent arbitration. The second respondent (SAFA) did not oppose that
application and was aware of the allegations Zizwe made which formed the basis
of its dis pute, including what Zizwe prayed for as a resolution to the dispute . In
that order the first respondent (SAFA WC) was directed to convene an arbitration
to deal with these disputes within 3 days of that order. Th at order applied to SAFA
as well, which was cited, served and elected not to oppose that application . On 11
June 2025 SAFA WC informed Zizwe and Hannover Park , by an email through its
legal representatives, that it will abide any agreement reached between them
regarding the appointment of an arbitrator. The agenda for the pre -arbitration
meeting and an arbitration agreement draft was sent to Zizwe, Hannover Park and
SAFA WC on 12 June 2025. On the same day SAFA WC raised concerns about the
arbitration agreement still making reference to it bei ng a party to that agreement ,
given that SAFA WC had by then lifted the suspension of Zizwe and the limits of
Hannover Parks involvement . These issues were referred to and discussed at the
pre-arbitration meeting where SAFA WC actively participated , which was held on
the afternoon of 12 June 2025. Most importantly, SAFA WC did not dispute, at the
pre-arbitration hearing, when it was pronounced, that the disputes were suspension
of Zizwe by SAFA WC and another dispute was about the sanction in relation to
the match dispute.

[6] By 16 June 2025, SAFA WC raised issue with its characterization as a party to
the match dispute. It proposed that the arbitration agreement be amended to reflect
that they were not a party to the match dispute, as they like Hannover Park , were

merely an interested party on the outcome of the arbitration and had elected to
abide by the outcome of the arbitration. SAFA WC filed a notice to abide in part,
dated 15 June 2025. That notice reads as follows:
BE PLEASED TO TAKE NOTICE that the First Respondent:
1. Does not oppose the substantive relief sought by the Requestor in this arbitration and
accordingly abides the decision of the Honourable Arbitrator insofar as the substance of
the relief is concerned.
2. However, the First Respondent reserves its right to be heard and to make submissions on
the issue of costs.
3. The First Respondent accordingly opposes any relief sought by the Requestor to the
extent that it seeks a costs order against the First Respondent.
4. The First Respondent shall submit argument or evidence, if necessary, in respect of the
issue of costs at the appropriate stage of these proceedings.

[7] On being asked by Zizwe to clarify their position, SAFA WC indi cated their
view that the question of a potential remedy fell squarely within the purview of
SAFA given that any such remedy could have material implications for SAFA and
the integrity of the National Championship. SAFA WC indicated that it had again
extended an invitation to SAFA to participate in the arbitration and it remained
unclear to SAFA WC whether SAFA would participate , and that SAFA did not
respond or elected not to participate. SAFA WC requested the indulgence of Zizwe
and Hannover Park to make limited submissions solely on the issue of a possible
remedy, which they intended to make in their written submissions and that they
would also address the issue of costs in the arbitratio n. On 17 June 2025 the draft
arbitration agreement, which recorded the amendments proposed by SAFA WC as
well as other changes, including changes to the arbitrator’s rate, and the costs

related to the venue, were provided to Zi zwe, Hannover Park and SAFA W C.
SAFA WC, on the same day through its representatives, upon receipt of the draft,
proposed that the following be included in the agreement (1) that the suspension of
Zizwe as uplifted by SAFA WC and it was now moot and no longer formed a live
dispute between the parties and that reference to the suspension be removed from
the draft arbitration agreement and that it be confined to the remaining issues in
dispute (2) that SAFA WC was not a party to the match dispute concerning the
appointment of the match officials and that SAFA WC sought to be recorded in the
draft arbitration agreement as an interested party, similar in status to Hannover
Park but only to the extent of its limited involvement a nd factual contribution and
(3) that SAFA WC had elected to abide by the outcome of the arbitration in respect
of th is issue and did not intend to make submissions on the merits, save for the
issue of costs, if necessary. Therefore, t he parties to the drawn arbitration
agreement were Zi zwe as requestor, SAFA WC was the first respondent and
Hanover Park was the second respondent. Zizwe cannot be faulted for not citing
and serving SAFA with the arbitration papers. SAFA had elected not to be a party
to the live dispute at the time.

[8] The arbitration agreement provided that the arbitration will be held in
accordance with the terms and conditions as set out in the court order , the relevant
provisions of SAFA statutes and the SAFA disciplinary code. The parties agreed
that the parties to the match dispute pertaining to the appointment of match
officials were Zizwe and SAFA WC although Hannover Park had an interest in the
sanction and any further remedy, determination or relief which the arbitrator may
decide on. The parties agreed that Hannover Parks involvement and participation in
the arbitration would be more limited to that of SAFA WC. SAFA WC on the other

hand indicated that it was merely an interested party on the outcome of the
arbitration and had elected to abide by the outcome of the arbitration on the dispute
concerning the match officials. The parties also agreed tha t the suspension of
Zizwe was lifted by SAFA WC on 13 June 2025 and that the suspension did not
form part of the arbitration as it was moot. Of further relevance was that the parties
agreed on further terms which included the identity of the arbitrator, th e arbitrators
agreed charge, liability for the charge and that the arbitrator shall finally determine
the disputes. The arbitration proceedings were conducted on 18 June 2025. Zizwe,
Hannover Park and SAFA WC participated in the arbitration proceedings. All three
submitted written submissions on the 18 th and also thereafter including up to 2 2
June 2025 but before the award . Zizwe and Hannover Park and also ma de oral
submissions. Zizwe, Hannover Park and SAFA WC submission included an
address on the issue of the remedy sought by Zizwe. SAFA WC did not sign the
arbitration agreement. Zzwe and Hannover Park signed the arbitration agreement
after the arbitration proceedings were cond ucted and in the course of the three
parties making further submissions to the arbitrator.

[9] Clause 3.3 of the arbitration agreement read as follows:
3.3 The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the court order , the relevant provisions
of the SAFA statutes particularly Article 58.4 thereof, and the relevant provisions of the SAFA
Disciplinary Code, particularly Article 81 thereof.
On the powers of the arbitrator in clause 5, clause 5.2.2 and 5.2.9 read as follows:
Without detracting from the generality of the foregoing, the Arbitrator shall have the power to:
5.2.2 rule on his own jurisdiction, including rulings on any dispute in regard to the existence or
validity of this Arbitration Agreement or the scope thereof.

5.2.9 generally, to exercise such powers and duties as are allowed to him by this Agreement , any
other agreement of the Parties or by the laws of the Republic of South Africa an d as are required
for the conclusion of these proceedings, where this Arbitration Agreement or the rules governing
the proceedings are silent in any respect.
On the governing law, clause 11 reads as follows:
11.1 The Arbitrator shall apply the laws of the Republic of South Africa to the determination of
the disputes between the Parties, including without limit, the South African law of evidence.
11.2 The arbitration proceedings shall, unless otherwise agreed or stipu lated in this Arbitration
Agreements, be subject to the SAFA Disciplinary Code.
Clause 81 para 11 of the SAFA Regulations, Disciplinary Code, read as follows:
Article 81 Arbitration
11. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Rules, the powers of the arbitrator shall be wide
and shall be determined by the arbitrator at his sole discretion.

[10] The arbitrator found that the match referee and officials for the playoffs on 17
May 2025 were to be appointed by Pupuma . The arbitrator foun d that Pupuma
made no such appointment. The arbitrator found that those officiating at the match
were not validly appointed. Neither SAFA nor SAFA WC had placed any valid
reason as to why they did not adhere to the rules of the Motsepe League as regards
the appointment of match officials for the match on 17 May 2025. Moreover,
SAFA WC had filed an opposing affidavit positively asserting that Pupuma had not
been officially appointed as SAFAs Provincial Coordinator of the Western Cape
ABC Motsepe League. This was untrue and there was in fact an appointment letter
to that effect, which SAFA WC later conceded. The arbitrator found that annulment
of the match was a logical remedy which would flow from the irregular
appointment of the referee and match official s. It was found that it would be

unsatisfactory and unacceptable that a match could be played in breach of relevant
competition rules and annulment was f ound to be an appropriate remedy. The
results of the playoff match between Zizwe and Hanover Park played on 17 May
2025 at Stellenbosch were annulled and the match was ordered to be replayed
within seven (7) days of the date of the award , with a proviso that if that was not
possible the parties could approach the arbitrator for an extension of the period.
SAFA WC.

The issue that SAF A WC was not bound by the arbitration agreement.

[11] In Fassler, Kamstra & Holmes v Stallion Group of Cos (Pty) Ltd 1992 (3) SA
825 (WLD) at 828D-H it was said:
In England the Arbitration Act is worded in a similar way to our statute in its basic requirement
that the agreement has to be in writing. In Hickman v Kent or Romney Marsh Sheep Breeders
Association [1915] 1 Ch 881 at 901 -3 and Anglo-Newfoundland Developm ent Co v
Newfoundland Pine and Pulp Co [1920] 2 KB 214 (CA) at 223 the Court held that the agreement
need not be signed by both parties. See also Halsbury's Laws of England 4th ed vol 2 at 267 para
521, where the following appears:
'The agreement need n ot, it seems, be signed by the parties, it being sufficient that a party
adopted and acted on it, although he may not have signed it.'
I was referred to three pre -Union arbitration statutes which all referred only to a written
agreement, and in none of them was it a requirement that the agreement be signed by the parties.
(See s 2 of the Cape Arbitrations Act 29 of 1898, s 1 of the Natal Arbitration Act 24 of 1898 and
s 2 of the Transvaal Arbitration Ordinance 24 of 1904.)
The Legislature has in a num ber of statutes required certain formalities to be complied with if
the agreement between the parties is to be enforceable. The sale of land requires the agreement to

be in writing and signed by the parties. There are similar statutory provisions relating to the
assignment of copyright or credit sale agreements. In other words, where a written agreement is
to be signed by the parties, the Legislature uses words clearly indicating the need to achieve that
end. The statutory arbitration provisions in the Tran svaal, Natal and Cape or, for that matter, in
the present Arbitration Act, have never used the words 'signed by the parties' in relation to a
written agreement.
My view in consequence is that it is not necessary for the parties to sign the written agreement.
It is enough if they have adopted and acted on it.
Having regard to all the correspondence between the parties, there was an
arbitration agreement in writing between Zizwe, Hannover Park and SAFA WC.
All three parties adopted and acted o n the terms of the agreement . SAFA WC
attended the pre -arbitration proceedings, made input to the terms of the draft
arbitration agreement, which were incorporated into the written agreement, and
made submissions to the arbitration proceedings on the dispu te brought for
arbitration. It did not avail SAFA WC when it did not like the outcome, to deny
that the award was not enforceable against them for want of their signature and on
that ground, amongst others, to seek an order that the award be set aside. In Mervis
Brothers v Interior Acoustics and Another 1999 (3) SA 607 (WLD) at 610 D-G the
following was said:
In terms of s 1 of the Arbitration Act 42 of 1965, an agreement providing for reference of a
dispute to arbitration is required to be in writing. Gener ally such a provision postulates signature
by both parties. However, a document may constitute an agreement in writing even though it is
signed by only one party. That the signature of one party is lacking does not matter, depending
on the circumstances of the case. The test is whether the parties have deliberately intended to

record their agreement in writing and have shown that the document so produced constitutes the
agreement between them. Union Government (Minister of Finance) v Chatwin 1931 TPD 317.
In the present case the second document was sent in response to the first and constituted a
counter-offer to the proposal of arbitration. It was received without demur and the parties

proceeded to arbitration. By its conduct the appellant accepted the terms expressed therein. In my
opinion it is clearly part of a written agreement within the meaning of s 1 of the Act.
SAFA WC made proposals to be added to the draft arbitration agreement . When it
sent the proposals in response to the draft arbitration agr eement, it was making a
counter-offer to the draft arbitration agreement. It proceeded to participate in the
arbitration proceedings, without raising any objections and cannot now belatedly
object. In De Lange v Presiding Bishop, Me thodist Church of Southern Africa and
Another 2015 (1) SA 106 (SCA) at para 46 it was said:
[46] The requirement that an arbitration agreement be in writing does not mean that it has to be
signed or otherwise executed by both parties to the arbitration. Al l that is required is that the
parties have agreed that the dispute in question, or all disputes of a particular character, be
submitted to arbitration, and that agreement has been reduced to writing. Thus it matters not that
the agreement is concluded ora lly, provided that a written memorial thereof is produced. The
important requirement is, however, that there has been an agreement to arbitrate the dispute that
is in issue between the parties. That agreement arises contractually.
The arbitration agreement stood valid against SAFA WC. Having regard to how the
arbitration agreement was concluded , SAFA WC has not raised a complaint that
convincingly suggest ed a reason to impugn the validity of the arbitration
agreement such that it must b e set aside. SAFA WC failure to sign, whether by
design or otherwise, did not make a persuasive case [De Lange v Methodist Church
and Another 2016 (2) SA 1 (CC) at para 36 and 37]

The issue that the arbitrator did not have the power to annul the results of the
match, to order a replay and to order that Pupuma appoint the referee and match
officials with the proviso that if that was impossible, SAF A National Referees

officials with the proviso that if that was impossible, SAF A National Referees
Committee appoint the referee and match officials

[12] Zizwe filed a request for direct arbitration of its dispute in terms of article
71.4 of the SAFA Statutes read with Regulation 81(2) of the SAFA Disciplinary
Code on 28 May 2025 related to the disputed match with Hannover Park. Zizwes
dispute related to the appointment of match officials for the match and the manner
in which the match officials officiated the match. Neither Hannover Park nor SAFA
WC took issue with Zizwes characterization of the appointment of the match
officials as unlawful, invalid and irregular . Neither Hannover Park nor SAFA WC
took issue with Zizwes characterization of the conduct of the match officials who
officiated the disputed match as biased in favour of Hannover Park , unreasonable,
irrational and that the manner of the appointment of the match officials and the
manner that they officiated the match evidenced co rrupt activity. No issue arose
before the High Court on 10 June 2025, before the arbitrator or before this court on
review in relation to this dispute. There was no reason why this part of the award
could not be made an order of court.

[13] Given the fact that the integrity of the outcome of the match was
compromised, tainted and tarnished , Zizwe amongst others sought that the
outcome of the match be reviewed and set aside, the match be replayed , Pupuma
appoint the match officials for the rematch and c osts in respect of parties who
opposed the arbitration. This was the remedy prayed for which Zizwe set out in its
dispute in relation to the appointment of the match officials and the way they
officiated the match, when they filed their dispute. In the pap ers before the High
Court on 10 June 2025, para 66 of Zizwes founding affidavit read:
66. The fact that the applicant lost the match against the third respondent had deprived it of all
those potential benefits . The only way to ensure that the applicant does not suffer irreparable

harm, both as far as its rights to have the dispute in respect of match, decided by arbitration and
in respect of the remedy which it is seeking in the arbitration , namely a rematch ag ainst
Hannover Park before properly appointed match officials, preserved and protected, is for an
order to be granted in the terms of the notice of motion . If not, applicant will be unable to have
its disputes resolved in terms of the prescribed and agreed dispute resolution measures and any
order of court in due course (after the finals have been played) would have no substantive effect
and prove to be academic/ a pyrric victory.
SAFA WC response, which includes on this point, is in the following terms at para
107 and 108 of its answering affidavit:
107. It is further noted that the Applicant expressly concedes having lost the match following the
penalty shootout. Consequently, the Applicant cannot claim any entitlement to reli ef or benefits
based on the outcome of the match , as set out in the relevant paragraphs of the notice of motion.
This concession fundamentally undermines the basis for the relief sought.
108. Moreover, it is important to highlight that the First Respondent , in the absence of any
successful challenge to the match result, has duly confirmed Hannover Park FC as the winners of
the league. This confirmation is consistent with the proper application of the rules and reflects
the finality of the competition outcome.

[14] By 10 June 2025, the issues between the parties included the appointment of
the match officials ; the conduct of the match officials during the match and the
remedy of a replay with the appointment of the match officials for that rematch
being made by Pupuma; over and above the issue of suspension and others. It is
simply opportunistic for SAFA WC to seek to suggest that for unknown reasons ,
valid in law, the remedy of the replay of the match and the appointment of the
match officials for that rematch somehow disappeared within the courthouse, when

match officials for that rematch somehow disappeared within the courthouse, when
the parties appeared before the court on 10 June 2025, so much so that all the
disputes, except for the replay with the appointment of the match officials being

done by Pupuma, were referred for arbitration by the court order issued on that day.
A proper reading of the papers, including the court order of 10 June 2025, left no
doubt that a replay with the appointment of match officials being made by Pupuma
was one of the issues referred for arbitration. On 15 June 2025 when SAFA WC
prepared, and later served a notice to abide the decision of the arbitrator, and
indicated that it did not oppose the substantive relief sought by Zizwe in the
arbitration and accordingly abided by the decision of the arbitrator in so far as the
substance of the relief was concerne d, that substance of the relief included the
remedy of the replay with the appointment of match officials being made by
Pupuma for that rematch. Leading up to 17 June 2025, SAFA WC appears to have
held the view that the question of the potential remedy fel l squarely within the
purview of SAFA. SAFA WC extended an invitation to SAFA to partic ipate in the
arbitration proceedings. SAFA elected not to participate and did not respond to
SAFA WC invitation to join the arbitration proceedings. On 17 June 2025 , at the
insistence of Zizwe for SAFA WC to clarify its position , SAFA WC indicated that
the suspension was lifted and it was no longer an issue. It elected to abide the
decision of the arbitra tor on the issue of the appointment of the match officials .
This election by SAFA WC on its own was not sufficient to undo the issue of the
remedy, which was a constituent part of the arbitration proceedings.

[15] The arbitrator was seized with the issue of a replay as a remedy and the
appointment of match officials for the rematch by Pupuma. SAFA WC had a
selective memory. Clause 1.3 and 1.4 of the arbitration agreement read as follows:
NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
1.3 The parties to the match disputes pertaining to the appointmen t of match officials are Zizwe
United FC and SAFA Western Cape, although Hannover Park FC has an interest in the sanction

and any further remedy/determination/relief which the arbitrator may decide on. Hannover Parks
involvement and participation in the arbitration would be more limited to that of SAFA Western
Cape.
1.4 SAFA Western Cape contends that it is not a party to the dispute concerning the match
officials and that it is merely an interested party on the outcome of the arbitration and has elected
to abide the outcome of the arbitration in this regard.
These were the terms that SAFA WC proposed to be part of the arbitration
agreement, after it failed to convince SAFA to join the arbitration proceedings. The
parties knew that once the question of the appointment of the match officials and
their conduct was determined , and it was found in favour of Zizwe, the arbitrator
would determine whether a rematch with officials appointed by Pupuma was the
appropriate remedy. This is what the out come of the arbitration included. SAFA
WCs belated pretence of a misunderstanding of what was in issue before the
arbitrator cannot be undone by a claim, after the award , that it did not agree that a
replay and the appointment of match officials was an issue to be decided. On the
other hand, in its submissions before the arbitrator, H annover Park demonstrated
that it understood that a remedy of a rematch was one of the issues referred to
arbitration. For arbitration purposes the parties accepted the affidavits which were
prepared for the 10 June application as part of the pleadings. In para 5 of its
submissions before the arbitrator Hannover Park refers to para 84 of Zizwes
founding affidavit in that application; in para 6 to para 134; in para 7 to para 145 ,
158 and 164 and in para 8 to para 169 , where Zizwe indicated its desire that the
disputed mat ch result be set aside and the match between the two be replayed
before 30 June 2025. In its submissions Hannover Park went on to make
submissions which included the competence of any order granted, that the relief

submissions which included the competence of any order granted, that the relief
sought may affect soccer matters across the country, the appointment of the match
officials and their conduct and Zizwes entitlement to the relief sought. Hannover

Parks submissions on the competence of any order granted and Zizwes entitlement
to the relief sought are in essence what SAFA WC wants revisited now after having
abided the decision of the arbit rator during the arbitration proceedings. Not having
objected to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator at the outset and thereafter having
voluntarily participated in the arbitration until it was finalized, SAFA WC must be
deemed to have acquiesced to his jurisdiction. Any complaint about the arbitrator’s
lack of jurisdiction being potentially dispositive of the matter should have been
raised at the beginning of the arbitration as a point in limine. This was never done.
SAFA WC cannot repudiate the jurisdiction of the very arbitrator whose decision
they abided by [Naidoo and Another v EP Property Projects (Pty) Ltd and Others
(444/2012) [2014] ZASCA 97 (31 July 2014) at para 25, 26 and 27].

[16] In Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union of South Africa v
Veldspun (Pty) Ltd 1994 (1) SA 162 (A) at 169F-G it was said:
When parties agree to refer a matter to arbitration, unless the submission provides otherwise,
they implicitly, if not explicitly (and, subject to the limited power of the Supreme Court under s
3(2) of the Arbitration Act), abandon the right to litigate in courts of law and accept that
they will be finally bound by the decision of the arbitrator.
Our law on what SAFA WC sought to do, is an unequivocal No. Generally, a party
cannot agree to abide by a decision and then challenge it later. This is based on the
legal doctrine of peremption, which means a deliberate and unequivocal waiver of
the right to challenge a decision. The principle underlying this doctrine is that no
person can be allowed to take up two positions inconsistent with one another, or as
is commonly expressed, to blow hot and cold, to approbate and reprobate. When
SAFA WC explicitly abided by the decision of the arbitrato r, in circumstances

SAFA WC explicitly abided by the decision of the arbitrato r, in circumstances
where it knew or ought to have known that Zizwe was asking for the disputed

match to be replayed and the appointment of match officials to be made by
Pupuma, SAFA WC intentionally and voluntarily surrendered its right to a review.
SAFA WC elected not to pursue its answer as set out in paragraphs 107 and 108 of
its affidavits cited above. It elected not to object to the arbitrator engaging with the
issue of the replay and the appointment of match officials. SAFA WC did not
suggest that these issues were beyond the powers or mandate or terms of reference
of the arbitrator , at the arbitration proceedings . SAFA WC waived their right to a
review in writing on 15 June 2025. SAFA WC is legally bound to that choice.
[17] SAFA WCs opposition and counterapplication lacked merit and stood to be
dismissed. The arbitrator had the power to determine his own powers, which were
wide, at his sole discretion as envisaged in article 81 para 11 of the Code. This
included the power to determine the annulment of a match, which is a competent
sanction in terms of the C ode. Clause 5.2.2 of the arbitration agreement provided
for the arbitrator to rule on his own jurisdiction, including rulings on any dispute
about the scope of the arbitration agreement itself. Article 81 read with the rest of
the Code clothed the arbitrat or with wide powers of determining an appropriate
sanction in his own discretion. Annulment of a match is a competent sanction
applicable to legal persons in the position of Zizwe and Hannover Park, as
provided for in article 12(e) of the Code. The code ap plied to SAFA WC, Zizwe
and Hannover Park as envisaged in article 3 thereof. Article 27 explained what an
annulment of the result of a match was and provides that the result of the match is
annulled if the result reached on the field of play is disregarded . SAFA WC did not
advance good cause to escape the arbitration agreement and the resultant
arbitrators award.

[18] The nature of the decision and the rights of all stakeholders as well as any
other factor of public interest played a role in determining w hat an appropriate
remedy would be in given circumstances [Allpay Consolidated Investments v CEO,
SA Socia & Security Agency 2014 (4) SA 179 (CC) at para 29 to 33]. Prejudice to
any of the parties was also a relevant factor [ Chairperson, Standing Tender
Committee v JFE Sapela Electronics (Pty) Ltd 2008 (2) SA 638 (SCA). In
circumstances like the present, where the remedy had an effect on the
determination of the winner of the league, time and the just and equitable path of
travel to that determination were also relevant factors. There was also a need to
send a message to those in power in sporting governing bodies, in this instance
SAFA and SAFA WC, that they should respect and adhere to the governing
prescripts. The clear message should include that the out comes of competitions
should be determined in accordance with the prescripts, and not by questionable
deviations. Annulment as a remedy may follow even if the clubs were completely
unaware of the dubious mechanisations at play in the appointment of match
officials by a regulatory body, and even if that reversal of the match would have
dire consequences for one of the innocent clubs who relied on sponsors, if it is an
appropriate sanction. In this approach, I was unable to find any misdirection in AC
Oosthuizen SC following the decision of N Snellenberg SC, also an arbitration
award in The South African Rugby Union v Hamilton Rugby Union, delivered on
26 September 2024. The outcomes of a disputed match which was annulled are
reversible, if it is possible to arrange a replay in time. A rematch was a logical flow
from the annulment.

[19] A court's discretion to set aside an existing arbitration agreement must be
exercised only where a persuasive case has been made out [De Lange para 36]. The

court has a discretion which must be judicially exercised and a very strong case for
this exercise must be made [ The Rhodesian Railways Ltd v Mackintosh 1932 AD
359 at 376]. The requirement of good cause to escape an arbitration award entails a
consideration of the merits of the case in order to arrive at a just and equitable
outcome in a specific set of circumstances [ De Lange para 37; South African
Forestry Co Ltd v York Timbers Ltd 2003 (1) SA 331 (SCA) para 14]. SAFA WC
conceded that the appointment of the referee and mat ch officials was unlawful,
invalid and irregular, in circumstances where Zizwe alleged further that the
officiating of the match compromised, tainted and tarnished the integrity of the
outcome of the match so much so that it evidenced corrupt activity. Fac ed with
these serious allegations, SAFA abided the decision of the arbitrator. It was in the
interests of justice to annul the results of the match to avoid an unfair, unreasonable
and unconscionable outcome to remain. There was no compelling reason to set
aside the arbitration award. I did not find fault with the way the arbitration has
been conducted. For these reasons the order was made.

__________________________
DM THULARE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

Appearances
Applicants
Counsel: Adv. R Stelzner SC and Adv. A Coetzee
Instructed by : Godla & Partners Inc info@gpattorneys.co.za;

Irgodla@gpattorneys.co.za;zbobotyana@gmail.com
First Respondent
Counsel: Adv. U Mlameleli mlamleli@gmail.com
Instructed by: Rwasabisi info@rwasabisiattorneys.com
Third Respondent
Counsel: Adv. A Lawrence a.lawrence@webmail.co.za
Instructed by: B Amod basier.amod@gmail.com
second, fourth and nineteenth
Counsel: Unknown
Instructed by: Unknown