About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Middelburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Middelburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAMPMHC 52
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
Mjali All Stars FC v South African Football Association (SAFA) Mpumalanga Province and Another (2026/153080) [2026] ZAMPMHC 52 (29 July 2026)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION,
MIDDELBURG
CASE NO: 2026/153080
In
the matter between:
MJALI
ALL STARS FC
APPLICANT
and
SOUTH
AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
(SAFA)
MPUMALANGA PROVINCE
FIRST RESPONDENT
SOUTH
AFRICAN FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION
(SAFA)
NATIONAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
Delivered: This
judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties’ legal representatives by email. The
date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 29
th
July 2026 at 11h00.
JUDGMENT
Nsibande AJ
Introduction
[1]
This is an application for
mandamus
brought on an urgent basis by the applicant. The applicant is seeking
an order compelling the first respondent to hear the complaint
raised
by the applicant in accordance with the league’s rules.
[2]
The applicant is a football club, playing
in the fourth-tier league known as the Hollywood Bets League in the
Mpumalanga Province.
The first respondent is the administrator and
regulator of this league. There are three regions of this league in
the Mpumalanga
Province, namely Gert Sibande Region, Nkangala Region
and Ehlanzeni Region.
Facts
[3]
The applicant won the Gert Sibande regional
competition and as a result thereof qualified for the end-of-season
playoffs which determine
the football club to be promoted to the next
tier league. These playoffs are played by football teams that
finished in the top
two in their respective regions.
[4]
On 8 June 2026, the first respondent issued
a letter to all participating teams, SAFA Nkangala Region, SAFA Gert
Sibande Region,
Provincial Referees Committee and the Provincial
Competition Committee.
[5]
This letter was a notice to all the
participants that the Mpumalanga Hollywood Bets Men’s Regional
League 2025-2026 season
playoffs will take place on 13 June 2026 at
Witbank High School, Emalahleni from 07h00 to 18h00.
[6]
This notice indicated that the playoffs
will be played as a knockout competition to determine the winner to
be promoted to the ABC
Motsepe League 2026-2027 season for Stream A.
[7]
The teams that are listed in this letter
are categorised into two, namely Team A, comprising Phaphama FC and
Mjali All Stars FC
(the applicant) and Team B, comprising Ravens FC
and Emalahleni United FC.
[8]
On 13 June 2026, the playoff as indicated
in the notice proceeded as scheduled.
[9]
While the match between the applicant and
Emalahleni FC was proceeding and the applicant was trailing by 2-1,
the Chairperson of
the applicant submitted a grievance. The grievance
is framed as follows:
“
Re;
Grievance by Mjali All Stars Football Club against purported playoffs
to decide a team to be promoted to the Motsepe League,
and it reads
This letter refers. We
note that there are these current games proceeding at Witbank as
Provincial games and we want to state it
categorically that these
games are not Provincial games as they proceed for two regions and in
the absence of Ehlanzeni Region.
The two regions playing here are
Nkangala and Gert Sibande Regions competing for one spot whilst
Ehlanzeni region will be competing
for one spot only.
The said gathering
contravenes Hollywood Rules and SAFA competition rules. The
proceeding games lack status to decide a position
as they are not
provincial games.
We note whomever made
this decision is unlawful as it disadvantages other teams and SAFA
rules.
We therefore demand that
lawful provincial games be set down to decide promotion.
We hope you will find the
above in order.”
[10]
The document was signed by the Chairperson
of the applicant and also signed by the match commissioner.
[11]
The first respondent replied to the
grievance lodged, and the response is dated 22 June 2026. The
response in essence raised
the following: that on 11 June 2026 there
was a meeting held between the first respondent and the four teams
that were to participate
in the playoffs of 13 June 2026; that the
issue of promotion and relegation was raised by the applicant and a
clarification was
given; and that there was no dispute raised by the
participating four teams.
[12]
The letter goes on to state that the
provincial Hollywood Bets Men’s Regional League was organised
in line with and in consultation
with the clubs on 12 September 2025
in the pre-season meeting where the new format of two streams was
presented and accepted by
the clubs. It is common cause that the
playoffs proceeded on 13 June 2026 in terms of that format.
Issues
[13]
The issue before the court is the
determination of whether the applicant has been able to prove to the
court that the order sought
can be granted. The order sought is to
compel the first respondent to appoint a provincial disciplinary
committee within 48 hours
of service of the order and that this
committee be ordered to entertain the complaint lodged by the
applicant.
[14]
The applicant has also raised a
point
in limine
challenging the authority of
John Ndothi Hlongwane to represent the first respondent. Hlongwane is
a deponent to the first respondent’s
answering affidavit, and
he is the Provincial Executive Officer of the first respondent.
[15]
The first respondent raised the issue of
urgency of the matter, contending that the matter is not urgent, as
well as the non-joinder
of interested parties.
Points
in limine
raised by the parties
The Applicants’
Rule 7(1) Notice
[16]
The applicant argued and submitted that it
has issued a Rule 7(1) notice to the first respondent requesting
authority to act issued
by the first respondent in favour of
Hlongwane. The applicant submitted that no such authority was
provided; as such, the court
should not accept the affidavit of
Hlongwane and the application be treated as unopposed.
[17]
The first respondent, in resisting this
submission by the applicant, argued and submitted that the Rule 7(1)
point in limine
is misdirected. The first respondent submitted that a deponent to an
affidavit need not be authorised to depose to an affidavit.
That the
relevant question under Rule 7(1) is whether the institution or
defence of the proceedings by the litigant’s representative
is
authorised. As a result, the first respondent submits that this
point
in limine
be dismissed.
The First
Respondent’s Challenge on Urgency of the proceedings
[18]
In supporting its submission that the
matter is not urgent, the first respondent submitted that the
applicant received the notice
of playoffs of Stream A clubs on 8 June
2026, raised the issue on 11 June 2026, and participated in the
playoffs on 13 June 2026.
The applicant received the first
respondent’s response on 22 June 2026, demanded relief on
23 June 2026 and issued these
proceedings on 30 June 2026.
The first respondent contends that the applicant has failed to
explain why relief was not sought
before the playoffs or immediately
after the playoffs.
[19]
In response, the applicant submitted that
the trigger for the urgency was 11 June 2026, whereat the applicant
raised its concerns,
and it was disregarded. That on the day of the
playoffs, the applicant raised its formal complaint within the
stipulated time period
and again the first respondent refused to hear
the complaint within the determined time period. Lastly, the
applicant submitted
that the new season is starting on 9 August 2026;
as such, the matter must be heard and be determined urgently.
The First
Respondent’s submission on material non-joinder
[20]
The first respondent argued that Phaphama
FC won the Stream A final and was promoted. Emalahleni FC was the
other team that played
the final. The applicants’ grievance
attacks the validity of the very playoffs through which the rights
and status of these
football clubs were determined, and the applicant
is demanding a new and lawful playoff process. The argument goes on
to state
that these football clubs have more than a financial or
academic interest in these proceedings; they ought to have been
joined,
and failure to join them renders these proceedings irregular;
as a consequence, the proceedings must be struck from the roll.
[21]
The applicant submits that the relief
sought merely seeks for the first respondent to attend to its
complaint and make a decision.
As a result, there is no need to join
the other football clubs. As a consequence, this
point
in
limine
must be dismissed.
Legal Principles
[22]
The proceedings were lodged by the
applicant in the urgent court for the matter to be dealt with on an
urgent basis. It is trite
that a litigant who alleges that a matter
must be heard on an urgent basis must first establish the urgency of
the matter.
[23]
Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court
deals with urgent matters, and it requires the applicant to set out
explicitly the circumstances
said to render the matter urgent and why
substantial redress cannot be obtained in due course. Before dealing
with the issue of
urgency, it is prudent to deal with the
point
in limine
raised by the applicant, the
Rule 7(1) notice.
[24]
In dealing with the raised Rule 7(1)
point
in limine
, it is important to look at
the rule. Rule 7(1) states as follows:
“
Subject
to the provisions of subrules (2) and (3) a power of attorney to act
need not be filed, but the authority of anyone acting
on behalf of a
party may, within 10 days after it has come to the notice of a party
that such person is so acting, or with leave
of the court on good
cause shown at any time before judgement, be disputed, whereafter
such person may no longer act unless he
satisfied the court that he
is authorised so to act, and to enable him to do so the court may
postpone the hearing of the action
or application.”
[25]
Erasmus
Superior Court Practice,
[1]
in
discussing the purpose of Rule 7, states the following:
“
The
purpose of a power of attorney is to establish the mandate of the
attorney concerned and ‘to prevent a person whose name
is being
used throughout the process from afterwards repudiating the process
altogether and saying he had given no authority, and
to prevent
persons bringing an action in the name of a person who never
authorised it’.”
[26]
The
Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of
Ganes
and Another v Telecom Namibia Ltd
,
[2]
held that:
“
In
my view, it is irrelevant whether Hanke had been authorised to depose
to the founding affidavit. . . .
It is
the institution of the proceedings and the prosecution thereof which
must be authorised
.” (My
emphasis.)
[27]
This
approach has been followed by our courts in
ANC
Umvoti Council Caucus and Others v Umvoti Municipality
[3]
and
Mahikeng
Local Municipality v Harrison
.
[4]
In applying this principle to this matter, it is clear that the
proceedings were instituted and prosecuted by a firm of attorneys
purporting to act on behalf of the first respondent. Hlongwane
deposed to the first respondent’s answering affidavit whereat
he stated that he is duly authorised to depose to the affidavit and
that the facts herein fall within his personal knowledge.
[28]
This Court is satisfied that Hlongwane did
not institute and prosecute the proceedings but deposed to an
affidavit. The authority
envisaged in Rule 7(1) cannot be said to be
applicable to Hlongwane. As a result, the
point
in
limine
is dismissed, and the affidavit of Hlongwane is admitted to the
record of the proceedings.
[29]
I will now deal with the
point
in limine
of non-joinder of the
Phaphama FC and Emalahleni FC. Phaphama FC has been promoted from the
Hollywood Bets League in Mpumalanga
Province as a result of being
winners of the playoffs that were played on 13 June 2026. The
status of this football club has
changed as a result of such
promotion. The complaint lodged by the applicant is against the
procedure followed by the first respondent
in coordinating the
playoffs. The applicant insists that the relief it seeks will not
affect the other football clubs, in particular
the now promoted
Phaphama FC, as the court is requested to order the first respondent
to hear its complaint.
[30]
It is inconceivable that the complaint
lodged by the applicant can be determined without confronting the
completed results and the
rights of the now promoted Phaphama FC. If
the internal processes sought have the potential of disturbing the
results of the playoffs,
at least Phaphama FC, who have a direct and
substantial interest, should have been joined in these proceedings.
On the contrary,
if it does not have the potential of disturbing the
results, as claimed by the applicant, then the relief sought cannot
be said
to be capable of redressing the harm which the applicant says
it will suffer and there will be no basis for an urgent relief.
[31]
In
Judicial
Service Commission and Another v Cape Bar Council and Another
,
[5]
the court held as follows:
“
It
has by now become settled law that the joinder of a party is only
required as a matter of necessity – as opposed to a matter
of
convenience – if that party has a direct and substantial
interest which may be affected prejudicially by the judgement
of the
court in the proceedings concerned.”
[32]
It is clear that the relief sought by the
applicant may affect the promotion status of Phaphama FC and the
other teams that participated
in the playoffs on 13 June 2026;
as such, Phaphama FC has a direct and substantial interest in the
judgement of the court
in these proceedings and ought to have been
joined.
[33]
In
Amalgamated
Engineering Union v Minister of Labour
,
[6]
Fagan AJA stated that the court would not determine issues in which a
third party may have a direct and substantial interest without
being
satisfied that the rights of such third party will not be
prejudicially affected by the order.
[34]
As a result thereof, the court upholds this
point in limine
[35]
I now revert to the urgency of the matter;
the applicant submits that the urgency was triggered on 11 June 2026,
and a formal complaint
was lodged on 13 June 2026 during the playoff
games. The complaint lodged is against the formulation of the
playoffs. The request
by the applicant in its complaint clearly
states that “
We therefore demand
that
lawful
provincial games be set down to decide promotion.
”
[36]
It is a fact that the formation of the
playoffs as implemented and followed by the first respondent on 13
June 2026 was communicated
to its members and affiliates, including
the applicant, as far back as 12 September 2025, and the reasons
thereof were stated.
The decision to change the format of the
playoffs was duly made by the Provincial Executive Committee (PEC)
and communicated to
the members and affiliates of the first
respondent. There is no challenge to this decision made by the PEC;
the decision still
stands.
[37]
It is clear that what happened on 13 June
2026 was the implementation of the resolution communicated on 12
September 2025. The members
of the first respondent, including the
applicant, were aware of the new format of the 2025-2026 playoffs as
at 12 September
2025. As a result, the court finds that the
applicant has not discharged the burden of proving the urgency of the
matter.
Analysis
[38]
It is trite that in urgent proceedings the
applicant must first establish the urgency of the matter. Should the
applicant fail to
establish urgency, the matter stands to be struck
off the roll for lack of urgency.
[39]
The court has also upheld the two
points
in limine
raised by the first
respondent in this matter; as a result, the court will not venture
into the merits of the matter.
Remedy
[40]
As a consequence of the upholding of the
points in limine
,
the non-joinder of the interested third party and the lack of urgency
of the matter, the application stands to be struck off the
roll.
Order
[41]
In the result, the following order is made:
1
The Applicants’
point
in limine
relating to the
non-compliance with Rule 7(1) is dismissed.
2
The First Respondent’s
point
in limine
of non-joinder is upheld.
3
The First Respondent’s
point
in limine
of lack of urgency is upheld.
4
The Application is struck from the roll.
5
The Applicant is to pay the costs of the
application on a party and party basis, including the costs of
Counsel on Scale C.
VM NSIBANDE
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION,
MIDDELBURG
Appearances
For
Applicant:
Adv S
Zimema
Instructed
by:
Mjali
and Associates Attorneys
For
Respondent:
Adv S
Maliwa assisted by Adv Ms L Mhambi
Instructed
by:
Merriam
M Chueu Attorneys
[1]
Erasmus
Superior Court Practice RS 30, 2026, D1 Rule 7-11.
[2]
Ganes
and Another v Telecom Namibia Ltd
2004
(3) SA 615
(SCA) at para 19.
[3]
ANC
Umvoti Council Caucus and Others v Umvoti Municipality
[2009] ZAKZPHC 47; 2010 (3) SA 31 (KZP).
[4]
Mahikeng
Local Municipality v Harrison
[2021] ZANWHC 87.
[5]
Judicial
Service Commission and Another v Cape Bar Council and Another
[2012] ZASCA 115
;
2013 (1) SA 170
(SCA) at para 12.
[6]
Amalgamated
Engineering Union v Minister of Labour
1949 (3) SA 637
(A).