Page 2
SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL PLAYERS UNION (SAFPU) Applicant
and
SOUTH AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION (SAFA) Respondent
JUDGMENT
[1] The applicants are Soccer Clubs who approached the court on the basis of
urgency for an order to the following effect:
“2. An order granted by the Honourable Court on 30 January 2026 be
reconsidered and set aside.
3. An order that any of the respondents that opposes this application
pay the costs in this application on attorney and client scale.”
[2] The order to which reference is made is an order granted on 30 January 2026
by Qofa -Lebakeng AJ by agreement between SAFPU and certain listed
players as well as SAFA and the NSL. The terms of the order read as follows:
“By agreement between the parties the following order is made:
1. It is declared that the first respondent’s failure to take a decision
to be unlawful in terms of section 6(2)(g) of the Promotion of
Administrative Justice Act, 3 of 2000 (PAJA).
Page 3
2. The first respondent’s failure to make a decision or take
administrative action as reviewed and set aside.
3. The first respondent is directed to:
3.1 Within ten (10) days, after service of the order upon it, to
take all steps necessary to appoint approved arbitrators
to provide over the disputes between those persons
identified in Annexure A and the respective present
and/or former Clubs, subject to order 3.2 below;
3.2 Declare those disputes between those persons
identified in Annexure A and the respective present
and/or former Clubs that are not compliant with the
prescribed appeals procedure of the first respondent;
and
3.3 Within five (5) days after the appointment of the
arbitrator, schedule the arbitration for hearing.
4. Each party shall bear its own costs.”
[3] This application for reconsideration is formulated as an application in terms of
Rule 6(12)(c). This much is apparent from the founding affidavit. However,
the application to which it relates was not an urgent application whilst Rule
6(12)(c) expressly relates to the reconsideration of an order granted ex parte
in an urgent application.It was not an ex parte application as t he order was
Page 4
granted by agreement between the parties, which parties did not include the
applicants.
[4] During argument Mr Thobejane, an attorney, purported to change tack to
change the current application into a recission application in terms of Rule 42.
The difficulty with this change in tack is that the papers do not bear it out and
the respondents have not been offered an opportunity to respond to it. The
case for the applicants must be made out in the papers and not in argument.
[5] Mr Thobejane purported to act as the attorney of SAFA in opposing the
application which led to the order now sought to be reconsidered. When he
was challenged to produce his authority in terms of Rule 7, he failed to do so.
However, Mr Thobejane has been aware of the order sought to be impugned
since at least 26 January 2026, when he sought to oppose the application
referred to on behalf of SAFA.
[6] In these proceedings the applicants contend that they only found out of the
aforesaid application at a later stage. Mr Thobejane filed a notice oppose on
their behalf- an incomprehensible step as they were not parties.
[7] When pointed out to Mr Thobejane (representing the applicants ) that the
applicants are not identified as parties in Annexure A to the aforesaid order,
Mr Thobejane pointed out that some of the individual players referred to in the
Annexure A to the order are players who are members of the applicant
Clubs.The Annexure A referred to was not on CaseLines..
Page 5
[8] In an email of 19 February 2026 (i.e. after the date of the aforesaid court order)
the CEO of the South African Football Association wrote to inter alia Mr
Thobejane, with reference to an appeal of Maruma Gallants F.C. / Riyaaz Nell.
The import of the aforesaid letter was that an appeal statement filed on behalf
of the aforesaid Club and its player was defective in that a R30 000.00 deposit
as required by Article 81(1) had not been paid by the Club. In the absence of
the prescribed deposit, the CEO stated that SAFA is unable to refer the matter
to the Arbitration Tribunal for determination.
[9] Similar letters were written in respect of statements of appeal by Maruma
Gallants F.C. and a number of other players, which Include M usa Nyatama,
Tshediso Patjie, Maswime Anayo, Kgotso Mahloane and Bokang Molete.
[10] Mr Thobejane contended that the order appealed against had the effect of
disposing of pending appeals by virtue of paragraph 3.2 of the order as quoted
above. This is not how the order reads, however. That order empowered the
first respondent to declare non-compliant those appeals that were found to be
non-compliant. Those decisions postdate the court order. The applicants’
grievance therefore relates to decisions that postdate the date of that court
order. The court order itself merely empowered a deci sion in respect of
appeals that were found not to be compliant.
[11] The aforesaid letters by the CEO of SAFA have not made reference to the
court order in question. If, however, these are the players referred to in
Annexure A to that court order, then the remedy would lie in challenging the
decision set out in the letters of 19 February 2026.This challenge could include
Page 7
APPEARANCES:
COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT : ADV THOBEJANE
INSTRUCTED BY : BOTHA MASSYN AND THOBEJANE ASSOCIATION
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT : ADV KLOPPER
INSTRUCTED BY : BDP ATTORNEYS INC